(3-VT) Barracks and Terracotta Army move

[Legen]

This counterproposal staying up without the options of the base proposal it was meant to counter is a clear abuse.

I just can't believe this is headed towards voting phase with the other 2 proposals it was with vetoed. Its absurd; Borderline underhanded.

Hold on, counterproposals aren't about being dependent on a previous proposal to exist, they can exist in isolation. The distinction to a regular proposal is that they either conflict with a previous proposal for a given mechanic; in this case, it was both the move of iron reveal to Iron Working and how Bronze Working is to be strengthened. The two counterproposals were about keeping iron reveal at Bronze Working and addressing the tech's balance in different ways, mine using the unmodded BNW layout as reference, the other trimming the proposal's parts he considered to go too far.

If a proposal being removed implies veto on its counterproposals, then the original proposer can mess with the counterproposals by either withdrawing it at the last moment, or amending it in a way that would result in a veto. It doesn't need to be with bad intentions, but it would nonetheless throw out counterproposals that would otherwise be normal proposals had their authors proposed first. That would also mean you're better rushing your proposals, so that your ideas don't end at at the mercy of someone else's intention, or attention to previous proposals; taking your time to think through before proposing becomes a risk.

 

[DeAnno]

And it doesn't strike you as a problem that one of the strongest wonders in the game is so early in the game you can reroll for it? Seems lopsided.

It's not great, but that's what I see as the issue with this proposal rather than Miltheory being particularly bad.

 

[Iridium]

This is a great and well-received proposal, hope it passes.

 

[azum4roll]

If you prefer https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...rlier-in-the-tree-earth-mother-update.681397/ or https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/3-vt-ancient-classical-bottom-tech-shakeup.681354/ , please vote Nay on this. If this one passes, those two CANNOT be proposed for yet another month.

 

[Lysam]

I agree that military theory would be left as a terrible tech due to no economic value it now has with barracks and as a prerequisite of masonry, mainly for terracotta army production bonus, which now too disappears.

I think it would be understandable change only if we add something of economic value to military theory. I would rather see +5 military cap gone from terracotta than its bonus to workers, I would be fine with reducing culture to +5, scaling with era.

I would like to see lumber mills enabled on military theory, make them +1 production on metal casting and reduce their metallurgy bonus to +1 from +2 now.

 

[Legen]

If you prefer https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...rlier-in-the-tree-earth-mother-update.681397/ or https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/3-vt-ancient-classical-bottom-tech-shakeup.681354/ , please vote Nay on this. If this one passes, those two CANNOT be proposed for yet another month.

Those two can be proposed if the next release scheduled for early February (I assume it is) has it implemented. It is a simple thing to implement, I can leave it as a pull request on github ahead of time to ensure the new release will have it (if it passes) even if something happens on my end in February. I have no intention of delaying it, it is a change I want in my games.

 

[DImensiondog]

There’s only one solution, the sponsors of conflicting proposals must meet up and fight to the death.

 

[N.Core]

I think it's fine that Military Theory left being an uninteresting tech because people tend to beeline anyway. If you have no Horses, you can leave Military Theory for a while.
VP tech layout doesn't facilitate extreme beelining anyway.

This change only hampers Zulu a little bit since this ability is not exclusive to them anymore (Ikanda already unlocked at the Bronze Working), which is good IMO.

I would like to see lumber mills enabled on military theory, make them +1 production on metal casting and reduce their metallurgy bonus to +1 from +2 now.

There's already a queued proposal waiting to be implemented on the next update, so you can't propose that now.

 

[pineappledan]

Those two can be proposed if the next release scheduled for early February (I assume it is) has it implemented. It is a simple thing to implement, I can leave it as a pull request on github ahead of time to ensure the new release will have it (if it passes) even if something happens on my end in February. I have no intention of delaying it, it is a change I want in my games.

No, we can't.

Our proposed changes would mean reverting yours, which can't be altered until at least 1 month after you implement them. They can't be proposed until at least march, and that assumes we don't have a long-period congress, that you actually implement your changes, or that something else isn't changed on BW.

Withdraw this proposal so we can have an actual vote.

 

[Iridium]

Do not withdraw this proposal.

 

[Legen]

No, we can't.

Our proposed changes would mean reverting yours, which can't be altered until at least 1 month after you implement them. They can't be proposed until at least march, and that assumes we don't have a long-period congress, that you actually implement your changes, or that something else isn't changed on BW.

Withdraw this proposal so we can have an actual vote.

The rule does not say it has to be one month after implemented, it says: "The proposal must not affect the same game mechanic as a proposal in the Proposal Queue (awaiting implementation into a release). See Proposal & Ratification Queues."

I think you are confusing it with the rule that specify for proposals that failed during the voting/ratification phase: "The proposal must not be identical (or very similar to) a proposal that was rejected by the community in last month’s Voting Phase, or which was overturned during ratification within the past 30 days. A substantially changed proposal on the same game mechanic is allowed."

So, if the February release has my proposal implemented (assuming it passes), then you'll be able to propose a ratification option as soon as the release is available. There is no one-month cooldown for this case. If there were, you'd be unable to have ratification options, as any new option would have to wait for the ratification to already have concluded.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal vetoed.

Reason: Vetoing this one in the interests of the health of the VP Congress System - see https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/update-to-vp-congress-schedule.681795/ for explanation. To clarify, @Legen didn't do anything wrong, it's an underlying problem with the system I designed.