(2R-01) The Ratification Vote Poll: Part 1

[Recursive]

I decided to combine all of the Ratification Votes into a few threads for everyone's sanity, my own included. I would have done a single thread, but XenForo limits how many options I can put in a single poll.

Changes that are significantly bugged will not be ratified until the bugs are resolved.

This is part 1 of the Ratification Vote Poll.
Part 2: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2r-02-the-ratification-vote-poll-part-2.681146/
Part 3: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2r-03-the-ratification-vote-poll-part-3.681147/

Voting Instructions:
For each proposal or set of changes in the poll:

Keep votes to KEEP the changes as-is, with no modifications except bugfixes. However, the changes can be modified in the next VP Congress through Proposals. IMPORTANT: If you think a change is in the right direction but needs modifications that aren't covered by an existing Ratification Option, vote "Keep" and make a proposal later on.

Change (Option X) votes to KEEP the changes with modifications. See below for the details on those modifications.

Repeal votes to REMOVE the changes.

You can vote for any number of options.

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.

---

PROPOSALS AND CHANGES TO BE RATIFIED

Changes	Release or Most Recent Fix Date	Notes
(1-04) Proposal: Burghers rework	November 22
(1-05) Difficulty Level Revamp Proposals	November 22	Proposal 5a; Barbarian spawns on turn 2 reduced to 1% of eligible tiles
(1-06) Tradition Changes Proposals	November 22	Proposal 6
(1-07) Proposal: Artistry OVERHAUL	November 22
(1-08) Proposal: Buffs to Engineer specialists	November 22
(1-09) Proposal: Remove malus from healing promotion	November 22
(1-10) Make Paper Maker Make Paper Proposals	November 22	Proposal 10b
(1-11) City-State Unit Gift Proposals	November 22	Proposal 11a
(1-13) Proposal: Urban Planning (Progress) Settler Production Bonus	November 22
(1-14) Proposal: Greatly increase production requirements of world congress collaborative wonders	November 22
(1-20) Proposal: First Great Prophet always spawns in the capital	November 22
(1-22) Infiltrators Promotion Proposals	November 22	Proposal 22a
(1-23) Early Game Building Proposals	November 22	Proposal 23a

---

RATIFICATION OPTIONS

Ratification Option 1 for Make Warlord Bonus Neutral, Settler Easier, Rework Difficulty Levels and Barbarians
Discussion Thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ion-era-scaling-free-exp-for-ai-units.680857/
Proposer: @Flamingcheesepie
Sponsor: @Recursive

Proposal Details
Currently, AI gets flat EXP bonuses as well as increased EXP from combat as a percent. The current formula is
Settler: 0/0
Chieftain: 0/0
Warlord: 0/0
Prince: 10/20%
King:15/40%
Emperor: 20/60%
Immortal: 25/80%
Deity: 30/100%

I don't think that this frontloaded bonus is as interesting, especially since AI is known to have low unit retention, and therefore not have highly leveled units into the lategame. Instead, currently without touching the extra % EXP from combat, I would like to suggest AI free exp scaling with era. It would skip the Ancient era and begin in Classical. Currently the numbers I have in mind are as follows, but they are up for debate:
Settler: 0/0
Chieftain: 0/0
Warlord: 0/0
Prince: 5/2 (19)
King: 10/2 (24)
Emperor: 10/3 (31)
Immortal: 15/3 (36)
Deity: 15/4 (43)

First number is flat EXP from the beginning of the game, second number is EXP per era, which only kicks in in the Classical era, and the third number in parenthesis is the total EXP AI will gain by the Information era.

This backloads AI combat bonuses, allowing smoother progression of power throughout the game.

Originally I did not want to adjust AI getting extra % EXP from combat, but the more I think about it, the more I would like to remove it. Obviously this would be a huge nerf, so the compensatory change would be
Prince: 5/2 (19)
King: 10/3 (31)
Emperor: 10/4 (38)
Immortal: 15/5 (50)
Deity: 15/6 (57)

You can see total available EXP per era in the attached excel sheet, though it ignores the Order and the Elite Forces tenet in Autocracy. For most relevant breakpoints, on Emperor Ranged units begin to have T4 promotions by the Modern era, while on Deity they can get to 99 EXP by Industrial. Of course, as Pineappledan pointed out, they lose a lot of free healing from promotions, so it might not be as straightforward a balance change as it seems. You can play around with the numbers in the excel sheet yourself - I have drawn a red box around the cells to adjust to see how the numbers change.

Attachments:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/attachments/exp_per_era-xlsx.647026/

https://forums.civfanatics.com/attachments/proposaleraexp-png.647027/

---

Ratification Option 1 for Remove malus from healing promotion
Discussion Thread: (2R) Ratification Option: Let the bonus healing from Benevolence and Khan's ability stack with the healing of Medic from an allied unit.
Proposer: @Legen
Sponsor: @axatin

Proposal Details
This is a proposal that wasn't sponsored last month. Related posts:

- https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...nce-virtue-from-japans-dojo-promotion.679410/
- https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-healing-of-medic-from-an-allied-unit.679447/


Proposal:

The bonus healing from Benevolence (one of the eight possible virtues from Dojo's promotion) and from the Khan now stack with the bonus healing from of Medic from an allied unit.

Rationale:

At the moment, the bonus healing from both Benevolence and Khan's ability don't stack with the bonus healing of an ally with Medic. Instead, the highest bonus healing between the two units will apply. For instance:

• A wounded unit is near a Samurai with Benevolence only (+5 bonus healing), and a unit with Medic I (also +5 bonus healing). The wounded unit will heal an extra +5 HP, as if the Benevolence Samurai wasn't there.
  • Same as above, but with Medic II instead of Medic I. The wounded unit will heal an extra +10 HP, also as if the Benevolence Samurai wasn't there.
• A wounded unit is near a Khan (+10 bonus healing) and a unit with Medic I (+5 bonus healing). The wounded unit will heal an extra +10 HP.
  • Same as above, but with Medic II instead (+10 bonus healing). The wounded unit will heal an extra +10 HP, as if the Khan wasn't there.

This interaction means that both Benevolence and Khan's ability can be rendered redundant by a unit with Medic. Since Medic units are a common addition to any army, these two uniques can become useless quite frequently. This proposal intents to ensure they remain relevant, and a proper addition to their respective civ's kit.


Ratification Option 2 for Remove malus from healing promotion
Discussion Thread: (2R) Ratification Option: Reduce healing from Medic I
Proposer: @ma_kuh
Sponsor: @axatin

Proposal Details
Proposal: Reduce healing of Medic I to +3 hp (from +5 hp).

Rationale: During the debate for this proposal last session, balance concerns over removing the CS malus were mentioned. Reducing the healing I think cuts directly to the main concerns over removing the CS malus. I think Medic II should remain a high-value specialization option, retaining its full +5 healing.

 

[pineappledan]

The Siheyuan is getting a new and improved model next version.

I would also like to lower the yields of the UI.
Current Siheyuan
1 1 1 1 (doubled during WLTED)
+1 at Civil Service
+1 at Architecture
+1at Electricity

New Siheyuan
1 1 1 (doubled during WLTED)
+2 at Civil Service
+1 at Architecture
+1at Electricity

 

[axatin]

Change (Option X) votes to KEEP the changes with modifications

The combat strength reduction of Proposal 1-09 (Remove malus from healing promotion) isn't mentioned at all in Ratification Option 1 for it. Will it be reverted if Option 1 passes?

 

[Recursive]

The combat strength reduction of Proposal 1-09 (Remove malus from healing promotion) isn't mentioned at all in Ratification Option 1 for it. Will it be reverted if Option 1 passes?

No.

 

[axatin]

Hmm, the OP is a buff to medic, and the ratification option keeps that buff and adds another one?

How should I vote if I want the OP repealed and Option 1 implemented instead of it?

 

[rkkn]

Hmm, the OP is a buff to medic, and the ratification option keeps that buff and adds another one?

How should I vote if I want the OP repealed and Option 1 implemented instead of it?

it'll need a new proposal

so I guess vote for whatever you think will need the least change afterwards to reach the goal

 

[ma_kuh]

It's only related because it says "stacks with medic", the effect is unrelated to keeping/repealing the malus removal. It wasn't submitted as an amendment for the Medic changes, it was its own proposal. It doesn't make sense that to accept "allow these to stack with Medic" requires you not to vote for re-adding the malus.

 

[Rekk]

Re: Siheyuan, I think the improvement placement restriction is interesting, but we should keep iterating on the model. The city should look like it is extending into the surrounding tiles, and this is just a bunch of boxes that end up detracting from the aesthetic.