(4-A) Proposal: Make Polders buildable in Lakes

Status
Not open for further replies.

GeneralAmadeus

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 22, 2019
Messages
91
This is a proposal from Pineappledan that passed the congress last time but never got implemented so I am proposing it again in the hope that someone will make it happen.

Proposal Details:
Currently the Dutch polder can be built in any ocean tile with 3 adjacent land, including inland seas, but not allowed in lakes.
I propose we allow polders to be buildable in Lake tiles with 3 adjacent land. Ie any water with 3 adjacent land tiles.

Reason:
This would make polders slightly more common. Placements for polders are very rare right now. It would also make settling inland a little more attractive, since there can be some marsh/lake placements that can be attractive for Netherlands.
 
I thought the assumption was if it passed, it doesn't need to be proposed... just needs someone to implement it. I guess I'll technically "sponsor" it. So it goes to the next VP update.

However, https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/pineappledans-tweaks-for-vp.29326/ does have this change. Just gotta delete the rest of the files if you only want his Polder buildable on lake.
 
Last edited:
I thought the assumption was if it passed, it doesn't need to be proposed... just needs someone to implement it. I guess I'll technically "sponsor" it. So it goes to the next VP update.

However, https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/pineappledans-tweaks-for-vp.29326/ does have this change. Just gotta delete the rest of the files if you only want his Polder buildable on lake.
This is written under the Sponsorship Deadline section of the congress guide:
If a proposal is not implemented by that deadline, it will be dropped from the queue and fails automatically.
 
I think how it works is that it can be implemented past its expiration date, but the component isn't going to held in stasis for your benefit anymore
So you're going to have to compete or accept that your changes can be overruled by a change to that same component.

In other words, if someone proposes another different change to the polder, you would have to re-propose that first change as a counterproposal, or have that new proposal amended to include the old, unimplemented change
 
I like @GeneralAmadeus approach best. If a proposal is past its expiration date, it needs to be re-proposed in search of a new sponsor.

We can avoid the following situations if we go with this approach:

1. Who will re-propose the first change as a counterproposal if a new proposal comes up? Seems like a lot of work for a person to keep track of all the new changes and note any overlaps to know when to propose that counterproposal.
2. We can see waste of a sponsor's time. Let's say a new proposal came out and it won. The sponsor may have done 90% of the implementation for the original proposal but most of that implementation is a waste due to new proposal changing different things.
3. Proposals that were approved one session may not be for the next. Let's say we have 5 proposals approved for CV nerfing. 4 of those proposals were implemented and we noticed that we overcorrected and CV takes the longest to win. The 1 proposal that wasn't implemented isn't likely to be approved as its rationale is no longer relevant. We shouldn't assume that a proposal will remain popular, especially when we have many changes that can change our opinion.

It's also best we get @Recursive opinion on this. I do agree that proposals not implemented by the deadline should be dropped and failed as it's the least hassle and, if the proposal is a really good idea, we wouldn't worry about it not being approved again.
 
If this is the case, I will sponsor it.
 
I like @GeneralAmadeus approach best. If a proposal is past its expiration date, it needs to be re-proposed in search of a new sponsor.

We can avoid the following situations if we go with this approach:

1. Who will re-propose the first change as a counterproposal if a new proposal comes up? Seems like a lot of work for a person to keep track of all the new changes and note any overlaps to know when to propose that counterproposal.
2. We can see waste of a sponsor's time. Let's say a new proposal came out and it won. The sponsor may have done 90% of the implementation for the original proposal but most of that implementation is a waste due to new proposal changing different things.
3. Proposals that were approved one session may not be for the next. Let's say we have 5 proposals approved for CV nerfing. 4 of those proposals were implemented and we noticed that we overcorrected and CV takes the longest to win. The 1 proposal that wasn't implemented isn't likely to be approved as its rationale is no longer relevant. We shouldn't assume that a proposal will remain popular, especially when we have many changes that can change our opinion.

It's also best we get @Recursive opinion on this. I do agree that proposals not implemented by the deadline should be dropped and failed as it's the least hassle and, if the proposal is a really good idea, we wouldn't worry about it not being approved again.
In general I'd agree. However in this case (as it was already approved, there are no counterproposals, and it affects a narrow game mechanic) I'll accept it as a balance change outside of the VP Congress.
 
Proposal accepted as a balance change outside the VP Congress on April 17, 2023.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom