(2-VT) Win for losing

[DImensiondog]

This idea is taken from Caveman2Cosmos for civ 4. If you or the AI fall behind in any demographic you get bonuses to help you keep up.

Proposal
My proposal is for every % the AI is behind on a demographic they get the bonuses for which demographic they are behind in. Updated every 10 turns.

Population = reduced population cost
Food = increase in growth
Production = reduced building costs
Gold = decreased maintenance cost
Land = decreased border growth cost
Literacy = decreased tech cost
Soldiers = decreased military unit cost
Approval = decreased needs modifier

for example if an AI is behind the average for GDP by 20% it gains a 20% Maintenance cost reduction until the bonuses are updated.

 

[Solic]

This is going to get veto'd without the concrete numbers.

Why should civs that are ahead be punished for playing the game well? This will also make long term investments a lot stronger. Some of these effects are already present in some form too like techs being easier to research if other civs have researched them. It will also homogenize every civ a lot more, which I dislike. Why should a tall player gain more border growth points, because of other players growing very wide? It eliminates some of the unique aspects of a specific playstyle.

 

[axatin]

This would make all players in every game more similar. Different strategies have different advantages and disadvantages (for example a focus on expansion makes keeping the empire happy more difficult). Making strategic decisions is a vital part of the game, so I think their consequences shouldn't be attenuated in such a way.

In addition to that, there are already some mechanics in the game to make it more difficult for one civilization to coast away using an early advantage. For example, tech costs are decreased if the tech has already been researched by other civilizations. And some world congress proposals give bonuses to the civs that are behind comparable to those you proposed.

 

[Circe]

1% gain for 1% gap is pretty concrete, but I think it shouldn't be proportional or should be up to a limit.
I like the general idea, games get boring when one snowballs too badly. I'm usually only challenged by one runaway at best, and the other civs fall further and further behind. The WC proposals that implement this require time and delegates to pass, things losers don't necessarily have. In particular, I think the scholars in residence tech cost reduction(minus the city-state bonus) should be standard behavior.

 

[pineappledan]

The game already has rubber band mechanics.

For instance, tech costs are reduced for civs for each other civ that has that tech. So tech losers can get techs cheaper than tech leaders

 

[Recursive]

Proposal vetoed.

Reason: Insufficiently specific. Please provide exact numbers for your proposal.