[Vote] (2-01) Proposal: Decolonization - Change to affect ALL players

Approval Vote for Proposal #1 (instructions below)


  • Total voters
    75
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
10,598
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 1
Proposal
: Currently the decolonization proposal forces a single player to drop all of their CS influence to 50. The proposal is to change it to ALL players sharing this fate.

Rationale: Decolonization is an exceptionally powerful and penalizing proposal, able to completely shift the game, and devastate all of the influence work a player has done over the entire game. The idea here is to shift this proposal to be similar to nuclear disarmament. While there will always be people that benefit more from this proposal this others, it is now set up as a "soft reset" of the CS game that doesn't give any player a major advantage over the others.

Effectively everyone is put back on the starting line, the gun goes off, and all players can now chase for the CS again. It creates a dynamic new challenge in the mid game, without giving any one player a major advantage. It also prevents shenanigans like a player decoloing an opponent, taking all of their CS allies in the switch over, and then declaring on them, gaining a sudden and massive war advantage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If in your game Austria has 45 votes and is about to win a diplomatic victory, can you convince Siam with 27 votes and Germany with 22 votes to decolonize themselves (or rather their CS)?
 
If in your game Austria has 45 votes and is about to win a diplomatic victory, can you convince Siam with 27 votes and Germany with 22 votes to decolonize themselves (or rather their CS)?
If they are about to lose anyway the correct play for them would be to decolonize.
 
Last edited:
I like this idea, but the proposal should come with appropriate AI changes to judge decol better with the new condition.
Yea, I would be hard pressed to find out even as a human player when the right time to propose decolonization or to pass decolonization.

I like decolonization as is as well. Yes, it hurts, but it's supposed to. Decolonizing an adversary and taking their CS to help in a war just sounds like a fun strategy and is something you can still do after this proposal. You just need some diplomat units on standby. You can also hold hostage all unsphered city states like this by declaring on all civs, whereas before you could only do this to one.
 
Well can't we have both? An enforce decolonization for specific civs, and global decolonization for all.
The point of this proposal is make decol weaker against one specific civ (thus making it level the playing field instead of penalizing only one civ). No point in having both this and another global decol as AI would just spam the old decol instead.
 
The point of this proposal is make decol weaker against one specific civ (thus making it level the playing field instead of penalizing only one civ). No point in having both this and another global decol as AI would just spam the old decol instead.
Agreed. Ultimately I don’t consider the two compatible. The best way to keep current decol in would be to vote no on this proposal
 
Lets be clear on this. Decolonization as it stands is devastating. The concept is a good one. But there’s no way any single proposal should have such an overpowered effect. Its too strong. Plain and simple. Not to mention, that theoretically very large amounts of CS influence which take a lot of investment of time and resource can all be for nothing.

It’s unreasonable value for a proposal to have the same effect on a CS you have 300 influence with as you would with just 60.

What would make more sense would be for a flat reduction in influence all round. Example, all CS influence that player X has could be reduced by 100 for all states. Still a very strong effect, but not necessarily game changing and furthermore allows scope for human and AI players to calculate the proposals worth.

Still damaging. Potentially still devastating. But not utterly game changing. This is as it should be.

The figure of 100 is not very scientific. Was just throwing it out there.

But if this idea is unpopular, I certainly vote for the soft reset for ALL players as an alternative
 
I don't really think decol is THAT threatening. It typically gets used on someone with a lot of CS allies who are more than likely to have ways to recover from the decol if it goes through and often has ways to defeat it in the WC anyway. IMO it's a hurdle that a diplo victory seeker needs to be able to navigate to win.

I feel like sanctions put on a domination or culture victory seeker can be more devastating in a lot of ways. They often can't defend themselves as easily in the WC and there isn't as much you can do to recover from being sanctioned sometimes.

IMO I think the WC should have teeth to make it interesting. It's a good arena for counter play and makes diplomacy important.
 
Some of the other proposals are much more damaging than decolonization to DipV tbh. For SV it's scholar in resident, or space fight restriction, for CV anything culture and tourism related,... DipV needs some congress tool to smack down the top dogs, since it's very snowball-ish (the more votes you have the more chance you can pass suitable proposal to get more influential/kick down other contestants)
 
If decolonization should work as the anti-DiploV congress proposal, it does make sense that it should work like those other proposals: everyone below the median should be brought up, and everyone above it should be dropped down. The fact that it targets a single player does seem a little odd, in context.

Setting to 50 is pretty cool because it means you'll stay friends with every city state on the map until the next session. I'm not versed enough to speculate how that might affect some balance levers, but it's something interesting to consider.
 
I don't really think decol is THAT threatening. It typically gets used on someone with a lot of CS allies who are more than likely to have ways to recover from the decol if it goes through and often has ways to defeat it in the WC anyway. IMO it's a hurdle that a diplo victory seeker needs to be able to navigate to win.

I feel like sanctions put on a domination or culture victory seeker can be more devastating in a lot of ways. They often can't defend themselves as easily in the WC and there isn't as much you can do to recover from being sanctioned sometimes.

IMO I think the WC should have teeth to make it interesting. It's a good arena for counter play and makes diplomacy important.
I agree, in my experience decolonization sounds scarier than it actually is. I've found that the AI stops dumping diplomats in city-states it doesn't feel competitive in, letting me quickly regain nearby alliances with just one or two waves of purchases. If it's a choice between passing UN or World Ideology, I'll just take the hit and recover. You still have SoIs, and tools like coups or Great Diplomats.
I don't necessarily disagree with this proposal either, it sounds interesting and unlikely to make getting decolonized less effective in the short-term. It might let particularly wide civs grab even more alliances though.
 
Global Liberation and World Ideology both have greater consequences than the proposed resolution. I agree that resolutions should always be double-edged swords.
 
IMO I think the WC should have teeth to make it interesting. It's a good arena for counter play and makes diplomacy important.

Yeah its a fine line. making WC proposals not punishing means there is no reason to get votes and makes statecraft useless.

On the other hand I think we need a balance. Either there is WC proposal against a single player for each victory type or for no victory type.

Spaceship regulations hits everyone the same and all you need is production and a bit more time.

Decolonization and Sanctioning stand out in that they target a specific Civ and the AI isn't afraid of proposing them. If the wrong AI hates you, the will target you this way. Both proposal should have an impact on everyone just like Sanctions in real life have (no trade routes to said Civ doesn't really hurt the non-sanctioned ones).

I suggest some global percent based reduction of influence for everyone. Say every Civ loses 50% of the influence. This penalizes Civs with very high influence much more but everyone is punished. If you don't care about votes (like you don't care about spaceship) you can-propose this. This would however make Beliefs or policies that give WC votes much stronger which might be a good thing?
 
If in your game Austria has 45 votes and is about to win a diplomatic victory, can you convince Siam with 27 votes and Germany with 22 votes to decolonize themselves (or rather their CS)?
Exactly. Even if they vote yes ro prevent Austria from winning, they also decrease their own chances of a diplo victory. This makes a cultural victory by another civ more likely. And cultural victories happen way more often than diplo victories already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom