(4-18) Proposal: Pledge to Protect Military Power Requirement Reduced from 60% to 50%!

[Enginseer]

Timeline:

• Vanilla BNW: Anyone could pledge to protect.
• CSD: Pledge to Protect increases the City-State's combat strength
• VP: Pledge to Protect now requires 1 of the 3 requirement (being allied, connected with roads, or a trade route with them) making it harder to pledge.
• VP: Now requires 60% military power.

Problem: Pledge to Protect is an underutilized mechanic now... Not a lot of drama happened especially when historically a lot of wars DID happen over such tension. I sometimes do not even see multiple civs trying to pledge to protect one city-state even with maxing out the city-state's aggressiveness in the CSD config. I have an idea. More importantly, as major civs begin to be eliminated, the military power requirement will technically go up and fewer civs are unable to pledge, not being able to grant city-states their city combat strength boost to even resist a snowballing warmonger.

Proposal: Based on this chart, reducing the military power requirement will make some neighboring civilizations more likely to pledge at least 1-3 more civs depending on the amount you have available! We could establish a vote to reduce this requirement to 50%.

Indirect Effect
This will cause a little more drama to happen to warmongers, bullies, and greedy city-state hoarders.

This will cause city-states likely to resist bullying due to more availability of a pledge.

This will make city-states stronger due to more availability of a pledge.

It will make quests stronger a tad bit, however, the number of major civilizations being able to pledge would help those who are in the middle get that extra yield than snowballing players who are already ahead of the game.

This will make amplified influence decay more common especially when city-states feel attacked, weakening a civ's grip when they are pledging their protection to them.

Those who play on higher difficulty should enjoy an easier requirement to pledge and not suddenly lose their requirement to pledge just because the AI lost units that got replaced with a higher level.

Thoughts?

 

[Recursive]

Proposals can't have optional or "pick one of X" elements. To discuss what the appropriate value should be, a discussion thread in the main forum should be used.

You can also amend your proposal.

 

[Enginseer]

Amended to 50%.

 

[azum4roll]

Technically everyone can pledge to protect now if they have around equal military power. It's just that humans suffer from the requirement because of the extra supply higher difficulty AI has.

 

[Recursive]

Technically everyone can pledge to protect now if they have around equal military power. It's just that humans suffer from the requirement because of the extra supply higher difficulty AI has.

AI doesn't have all that much extra supply anymore. It's likely their higher promoted units increasing military power, or indirect unit supply buffs from their higher production capacity on higher difficulties.

 

[Slyceth]

I'd also like to add something vital, it seems impossible most of the time to do a pledge of protection on difficulties king or above.

Even if your entire territory is covered in units you don't even reach 50%.. while you need 60% I believe.

I propose it should be calculated based on proximity of units, not global units, like intimidation would. It makes sense, the city state sees the forces next to it and trusts that those protect them, not 8 nuclear missiles on the other side of the planet.

I'd also like to add to this that pledge of protection could be a valuable way to hinder negative diplomacy from competing city states favor with an ai if you both pledge the same one

 

[Stalker0]

AI doesn't have all that much extra supply anymore. It's likely their higher promoted units increasing military power, or indirect unit supply buffs from their higher production capacity on higher difficulties.

Its probably a combination of:

• AIs hit their supply cap much faster than humans do to various bonuses.
• AIs have enough gold to afford maximum caps (Often in the late game I stop around 80 units even if I can go to 120 just because the gold and prod investment isn't worth it).

 

[alchx]

. It's likely their higher promoted units increasing military power.

Yes. During wars, there are regular warnings about my lack of military power. Although sometimes my units didn't even take damage that turn. So some AI made up for the loss of a unit and got a recruit with 30+xp and 2-3 promotions at a time when only the Barracks are known to everyone.

 

[Enginseer]

Basically, those who play on higher difficulty should enjoy an easier requirement to pledge and not suddenly lose their requirement to pledge just because the AI lost units that got replaced with a higher level.

 

[alchx]

The highest levels of the game are the highest because there are no indulgences for the player. Why lower the requirements for these levels?

Time is given to restore our military power. 8 turns if I remember correctly. This is quite enough to produce or buy 1-3 units. Or let the units heal (which is not easy to do, as the AI will go on the attack).

The problem is that when playing without the Terracotta Army, you may need to exceed your unit limit, and this will instantly hit the production capacity of cities. Although you can immediately donate these units to CSs and reset the cycle again for 8 turns. Or sacrifice a unit, sending it into the thick of enemies to kill the enemy Great General, which is not bad, since the AI will not be able to place the Citadel near your borders in the future.

 

[Recursive]

Sponsored.

 

[besset]

I like being able to pledge to protect easier on higher difficulties but this will also make tributing harder. Taking tribute is already hard as is starting in medieval era. And a nerf to tribute doesn't make sense when it's already currently so bad

 

[Enginseer]

I like being able to pledge to protect easier on higher difficulties but this will also make tributing harder. Taking tribute is already hard as is starting in medieval era. And a nerf to tribute doesn't make sense when it's already currently so bad

I want to say this doesn't intentionally nerf tribute for smaller maps that much since only 1-3 civs are additionally able to protect when you have more major civs rather than less.

 

[azum4roll]

You missed the change where pledge requires 60% military of rank 1 instead of reaching top 40% of military rankings.

 

[der_weihnachtsmann]

I like being able to pledge to protect easier on higher difficulties but this will also make tributing harder. Taking tribute is already hard as is starting in medieval era. And a nerf to tribute doesn't make sense when it's already currently so bad

I think it could be solved by making them harder to obtain by other metrics like proximity and influece status. Maybe requiring both would make sense.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by Recursive.

 

[Slyceth]

That's barely going to make a difference in my eyes, pledge of protections are inherently flawed, and I'm always at least 30% off from this requirement, but it's a step in the right direction.

It should only require you based on how many units are close to the city state. 2 tanks on the other side of the world should have less impact on being allowed to pledge than 1 tank 5-10 tiles away from the city state, and that's final.

It'll take more testing but the results will prove my point. Just saving you some time! ^^