[Vote] (1-19) First Great Prophet Always Spawns In The Capital

[Stalker0]

Currently the first GP spawns in your city with the highest faith output. The change here is to have the first GP always spawn in your capital.

Rationale: There are three main reasons to do this.

1) Many beliefs work their best when in the capital. The simple fact is, 95% of the time, I want my holy city in the capital. So this means I either take a lesser benefit, or I lose turns moving my GP into my capital, which in tight religion races could mean not founding.

2) The capital is very hard to convert. Most of the time, your capital will take 2 missionary charges to convert, as opposed to the normal 1 for your other satellites. This is a BIG difference in that early game when all of those little things matter, it means that your religion spreads slower, which slows down your snowball.

3) Even in the rare times I actually want my holy city in a satellite, its rare that the one with the highest faith is the one I want to spawn in either, as often its more about position than it is faith. The capital at least tends to be a more centralized place in your civ, so I can send my GP to that satellite more easily should I want to. Contrast this to a spawn in a satellite, and then sending the GP all the way across the empire.


All told, the benefits of this change far outweigh the once in a blue moon times I would want a GP in a different city.

 

[rkkn]

yeah, currently I do everything I can to adjust faith output so that prophet spawns in capital. sadly, it's not always adjustable
one time I had the belief I wanted taken while my prophet was en route moving to the capital. that was really annoying

 

[azum4roll]

Yes, it'll help the AI a lot. Currently they can even lose their holy city to revolts if they get unhappy enough.

 

[balparmak]

Yeah, there were times when I made a border city, thinking that'd make it easier to spread to my neighbour through passive pressure... which never worked. So capital all the way

 

[Fluffball]

YES!

/end

 

[KlHannibal2]

Yes!

 

[cidk2000]

I agree with this proposal its a YES from me

 

[zeofig]

Yep. Sometimes it can be fun to have it in another city, but usually it's more like "oh god(s) why"

 

[frktest]

Not good for me, Usually I try to specialise different cities, Capital for World Wonders, a second city as Holy city, in a third I place Science NWonders and Academies and so on. That may not ever be rationale but for me VP gameplay is not only a matter of math calculations. So I like first GP spawns as is now

 

[CppMaster]

Not good for me, Usually I try to specialise different cities, Capital for World Wonders, a second city as Holy city, in a third I place Science NWonders and Academies and so on. That may not ever be rationale but for me VP gameplay is not only a matter of math calculations. So I like first GP spawns as is now

Then it's better to have capital as holy city, so you build holy wonders there.

 

[Recursive]

I sponsor this proposal.

Proposal Sponsors: Recursive.

(Sponsors have indicated that they are able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well. A proposal without a sponsor will not advance to the Voting Phase.)

 

[Slyceth]

STRONGLY DISAGREE!!!

Why?

At harder difficulties where you can't have your own religion, or in games where you just skip on a religion, you usually got to war. Going to war means taking a different capital. Different capital MIGHT be a holy city.

Do I really want to move my GP from my unholy capital all the way to the other side of the planet to my actual conquered holy city?

 

[CppMaster]

You can use GP in any city. It'd just spawn in your capital.

 

[psparky]

Looks like this will pass comfortably, but there appears to be a significant minority that prefers the current system. Would it be possible to add an option to revert to the current behaviour? Even an SQL define would be helpful.

 

[Stalker0]

Looks like this will pass comfortably, but there appears to be a significant minority that prefers the current system. Would it be possible to add an option to revert to the current behaviour? Even an SQL define would be helpful.

My only issue with that is, compared to a lot of other votes, this one is passing by a quite comfortable margin right now. If we start putting in secondary options for every proposal that had a "decent minority" we are going to get pretty nuts pretty fast.

 

[Rekk]

My only issue with that is, compared to a lot of other votes, this one is passing by a quite comfortable margin right now. If we start putting in secondary options for every proposal that had a "decent minority" we are going to get pretty nuts pretty fast.

Most proposals will be able to be reverted via sql. This sort of request is generally done via github. The current way we do things is actually gated behind the BALANCE_CORE_BELIEFS mod option. This proposal is a request to revert back to the BNW way of handling things. In this case, it would be very easy to implement this proposal by changing which mod option (create a new option) to gate the randomly spawning GP code.

Edit: Oops, forgot that this is for first GP only. That makes it a bit more complicated.

 

[Stalker0]

Most proposals will be able to be reverted via sql. This sort of request is generally done via github. The current way we do things is actually gated behind the BALANCE_CORE_BELIEFS mod option. This proposal is a request to revert back to the BNW way of handling things. In this case, it would be very easy to implement this proposal by changing which mod option (create a new option) to gate the randomly spawning GP code.

Ok that's cool. And that might be a good idea to add in to each passed proposal. If there is a little SQL nugget that people can use to revert a proposal, and its easy to add in, seems reasonable to me.

 

[Rekk]

Ok that's cool. And that might be a good idea to add in to each passed proposal. If there is a little SQL nugget that people can use to revert a proposal, and its easy to add in, seems reasonable to me.

Most of the proposals that require dll work are just so that the option can be turned on (in the promotion table, in the policy table, etc) via SQL, or are just numbers that can be changed via SQL, etc.

 

[Recursive]

Looks like this will pass comfortably, but there appears to be a significant minority that prefers the current system. Would it be possible to add an option to revert to the current behaviour? Even an SQL define would be helpful.

Ok that's cool. And that might be a good idea to add in to each passed proposal. If there is a little SQL nugget that people can use to revert a proposal, and its easy to add in, seems reasonable to me.

This will not be done for every proposal, but I'll do it for this one. Make a feature request on Github please.

 

[Deljade]

It's convenient for sure.
But I liked having the odd case where the capital and the holy city were different. How often did that happen anyway? To me maybe 3 times?
Do -Great Prophets- have to appear in capitals? I don't think so.