AndreyK
King
I think that marriages are too cheap. We should raise costs for first marriage and scaling both 400 and +300 for each next.
Is that a sponsorship offer?I can code that.
I had already replied to you in the original thread, but it can just be reworded to fit on 4 lines like the current UA is. Note that the way you formatted your example is barely on 5 lines.The current Austrian UA is already the single longest UA in the game. Making it any longer causes a UI issue.
Any of the proposals that don’t drop the WC vote entirely are instead opting to make the WC vote take longer to describe. As a result, 5-30a and 5-30d will not physically fit in the space given for a UA description. They spill over onto a 5th line and into the margins on the civ select screen.
Case in point, this is proposal 5-30a written out as described in the civ select screen:
View attachment 667922
The extra WC votes are a bad UA bonus anyways. UA abilities are available to civs immediately from game start; they should become relevant some time before the Renaissance Era. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. Era-locked abilities are what UBs and UNWs are for.
It’s not my personal preference, unlocking something 200+ turns before you can use it is objectively horrible game design. That’s like making an FPS where you give players a gun 4 levels before you give them any bullets for it. Heck, why DIDN’T you propose a renaissance UNW for Austria? No one likes their UB anyways. You never hear me grumble about Venice’s free WC votes existing, because they’re on a tech locked building, where such a bonus belongs.I had already replied to you in the original thread, but it can just be reworded to fit on 4 lines like the current UA is. Note that the way you formatted your example is barely on 5 lines.
The UA bonus is relevant before, because you're already planning marriages as soon as you meet a city state and they give off a bonus as soon as you make your first marriage. That the bonus continues to grow in ways beyond Renaissance era is like every other UA that scales with era. The specific window of having to show every part of its bonus before Renaissance era also just seems like a limit you personally prefer. What difference does it make if it's on an UA or an UNW that's build around the time the WC is founded?
Already done in discord, I think we can move along on the text being of relevance to the voteI demonstrated that if you add your proposal as worded it spills over the UI. It’s not my job to prove you right re: wording your proposal. If you can write out a version and demonstrate that you can word your proposed UA in a way that doesn’t spill over the interface then good, but if you can’t then it has no business going in the game. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this is not a problem, not just hand wave it away.
You reworded proposal d, but not proposal a, which is Solic’sAlready done in discord, I think we can move along on the text being of relevance to the vote
Taking your analogy further, it wouldn't be horrible design if you can pistol whip with it first. A marriage actually does something before the WC opens. I didn't propose a UNW, because I don't see an issue with this.It’s not my personal preference, unlocking something 200+ turns before you can use it is objectively horrible game design. That’s like making an FPS where you give players a gun 4 levels before you give them any bullets for it. Heck, why DIDN’T you propose a renaissance UNW for Austria? No one likes their UB anyways. You never hear me grumble about Venice’s free WC votes existing, because they’re on a tech locked building, where such a bonus belongs.
I demonstrated that if you add your proposal as worded it spills over the UI. It’s not my job to prove you right re: wording your proposal. If you can write out a version and demonstrate that you can word your proposed UA in a way that doesn’t spill over the interface then good, but if you can’t then it has no business going in the game. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this is not a problem, not just hand wave it away.
How about this:Here you go:
You prefer the freedom of knowing you’ll never beat Austria’s inherent vote advantage than have to try playing against her at a disadvantage?I think it'll be more frustrating to players to barely be able to outinfluence Austria later on with how hard that influence scaling is going to ramp up than having to try and outflank a few more votes in congress. Democracy has spoken however, so let's see how it'll do.
Yes, I'd exactly prefer to play at multiple smaller disadvantages than a disadvantage that I think is too large to overcome. The difference in magnitude is what's important here. I predict I'll likely not bother trying to out-influence new Austria and just stick to coups and spheres of influence.You prefer the freedom of knowing you’ll never beat Austria’s inherent vote advantage than have to try playing against her at a disadvantage?
I guess we could have opted for keeping some part of the WC votes, and dropped the increased resting influence, but every proposal has increased RI to some extent. Your proposal has players trying to both out-do Austria’s influence advantage and try to outflank their extra votes total.
It can be argued that when competing against austria in the late game. Her vote bonus is 1 vote per marriage, but every CS ally she maintains that you feel you "cannot take" is actually 4 votes, 2 she gains and 2 you cannot. So in terms of a competitive DV versus I could see the argument that very high resting influence is actually stronger in the long term.Yes, I'd exactly prefer to play at multiple smaller disadvantages than a disadvantage that I think is too large to overcome. The difference in magnitude is what's important here. I predict I'll likely not bother trying to out-influence new Austria and just stick to coups and spheres of influence.