• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

[Vote] (5-25) Austria UA Change Proposals

Approval Vote for Proposal #25


  • Total voters
    85
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a nerf to the AI and a buff to players.

Austria kit isn't particularly strong (I think it has two of the most worthless uniques), but it does one thing extremely well and that's enough to help the AI in the department it lacks focus, aka actively pursuing a victory condition. AI only game statistics that prompted this 'nerf' are spoiled by the terrible AI performances in the mid-late game: Austria wins by diplomatic only because it eventually happens to get enough votes but that comes naturally at turn 400+, while other AIs are unable to react because they're too busy fighting pointless wars or building one spaceship part every 20 turns. Maria is also a well rounded leader with flavors that don't make her hated by every other AI, until it's too late. I don't think being too ''oppressive'' in the late game is a bad thing for a civ, heck even massed impis can be very oppressive :p It just means you have to actively work to prevent an AI by winning, that puts good pressure on players in the city state mini game, similar to when you have Rome or Venice in your game.

As a player, the resting influence is never a problem. Late game it's about coups or hundreds of influence points from quests. +10% vs +15% GPP generation is not going to change much either, if anything is a nerf to the ability to win by CV or SV, DV isn't much about GPs.

50% more rewards from quests instead is a pretty big buff, and I think cs quests have to be rebalanced before making a UA even more centered on that.
 
Yeah. Sponsored.
 
It would be nice if option D were to go through as it currently seems, that AI Austria gets a higher bias somehow for using their great diplomats for embassies as opposed to influence.
 
The current Austrian UA is already the single longest UA in the game. Making it any longer causes a UI issue.

Any of the proposals that don’t drop the WC vote entirely are instead opting to make the WC vote take longer to describe. As a result, 5-30a and 5-30d will not physically fit in the space given for a UA description. They spill over onto a 5th line and into the margins on the civ select screen.

Case in point, this is proposal 5-30a written out as described in the civ select screen:
1690210280911.png


The extra WC votes are a bad UA bonus anyways. UA abilities are available to civs immediately from game start; they should become relevant some time before the Renaissance Era. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. Era-locked abilities are what UBs and UNWs are for.
 
Last edited:
The current Austrian UA is already the single longest UA in the game. Making it any longer causes a UI issue.

Any of the proposals that don’t drop the WC vote entirely are instead opting to make the WC vote take longer to describe. As a result, 5-30a and 5-30d will not physically fit in the space given for a UA description. They spill over onto a 5th line and into the margins on the civ select screen.

Case in point, this is proposal 5-30a written out as described in the civ select screen:
View attachment 667922

The extra WC votes are a bad UA bonus anyways. UA abilities are available to civs immediately from game start; they should become relevant some time before the Renaissance Era. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. Era-locked abilities are what UBs and UNWs are for.
I had already replied to you in the original thread, but it can just be reworded to fit on 4 lines like the current UA is. Note that the way you formatted your example is barely on 5 lines.

The UA bonus is relevant before, because you're already planning marriages as soon as you meet a city state and they give off a bonus as soon as you make your first marriage. That the bonus continues to grow in ways beyond Renaissance era is like every other UA that scales with era. The specific window of having to show every part of its bonus before Renaissance era also just seems like a limit you personally prefer. What difference does it make if it's on an UA or an UNW that's build around the time the WC is founded?
 
I had already replied to you in the original thread, but it can just be reworded to fit on 4 lines like the current UA is. Note that the way you formatted your example is barely on 5 lines.

The UA bonus is relevant before, because you're already planning marriages as soon as you meet a city state and they give off a bonus as soon as you make your first marriage. That the bonus continues to grow in ways beyond Renaissance era is like every other UA that scales with era. The specific window of having to show every part of its bonus before Renaissance era also just seems like a limit you personally prefer. What difference does it make if it's on an UA or an UNW that's build around the time the WC is founded?
It’s not my personal preference, unlocking something 200+ turns before you can use it is objectively horrible game design. That’s like making an FPS where you give players a gun 4 levels before you give them any bullets for it. Heck, why DIDN’T you propose a renaissance UNW for Austria? No one likes their UB anyways. You never hear me grumble about Venice’s free WC votes existing, because they’re on a tech locked building, where such a bonus belongs.

I demonstrated that if you add your proposal as worded it spills over the UI. It’s not my job to prove you right re: wording your proposal. If you can write out a version and demonstrate that you can word your proposed UA in a way that doesn’t spill over the interface then good, but if you can’t then it has no business going in the game. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this is not a problem, not just hand wave it away.
 
Last edited:
I demonstrated that if you add your proposal as worded it spills over the UI. It’s not my job to prove you right re: wording your proposal. If you can write out a version and demonstrate that you can word your proposed UA in a way that doesn’t spill over the interface then good, but if you can’t then it has no business going in the game. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this is not a problem, not just hand wave it away.
Already done in discord, I think we can move along on the text being of relevance to the vote
 
Already done in discord, I think we can move along on the text being of relevance to the vote
You reworded proposal d, but not proposal a, which is Solic’s
 
It’s not my personal preference, unlocking something 200+ turns before you can use it is objectively horrible game design. That’s like making an FPS where you give players a gun 4 levels before you give them any bullets for it. Heck, why DIDN’T you propose a renaissance UNW for Austria? No one likes their UB anyways. You never hear me grumble about Venice’s free WC votes existing, because they’re on a tech locked building, where such a bonus belongs.

I demonstrated that if you add your proposal as worded it spills over the UI. It’s not my job to prove you right re: wording your proposal. If you can write out a version and demonstrate that you can word your proposed UA in a way that doesn’t spill over the interface then good, but if you can’t then it has no business going in the game. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this is not a problem, not just hand wave it away.
Taking your analogy further, it wouldn't be horrible design if you can pistol whip with it first. A marriage actually does something before the WC opens. I didn't propose a UNW, because I don't see an issue with this.

Here you go:

1690218084130.png
 
Creates an incentive to explore and buy marriages as soon as possible. Other proposals are mostly 200 base, plus 200 per previous marriage. With a scaler of only 50 per marriage, scaling with era, the marriage scaling is actually cheaper than other proposals until industrial. Seems specifically designed to punish isolated starts. I don’t think that’s desirable.

the double WC votes on embassies idea seems nice. I don’t see why such an ability should be tied to marriages as a condition. You will marry all civs anyways, so it offers no new incentive. It could be its own thing, a synergistic parallel bonus independent of the marriages and that wouldn’t affect how it plays at all. What itying it to marriages mainly does is make the ability harder to use anywhere else, like it’s designed solely to frustrate someone’s attempt to move it around in their own modmod.

The bonus seems most appropriate to put onto a national wonder. If it is a standalone bonus of +1 WC vote for each City-State Embassy on a unique Printing Press national wonder, that would shorten the UA text, solve the “gun with no bullets” in ancient era issue, and give Austria a non-sucky unique component to replace that F-tier coffeehouse.
 
Last edited:
Here you go:
How about this:

Austria_UA.png


The "while at peace with the city-state" part could be placed on the marriage tooltip, present on the city-state screen and on the marriage icon. No need to place it in the UA, it's not like players are looking forward to conquer a CS they married.
 
C: I like the rest influence point scaling up by era, which is why I chose this one. I'll miss the extra vote :(.
 
I think it'll be more frustrating to players to barely be able to outinfluence Austria later on with how hard that influence scaling is going to ramp up than having to try and outflank a few more votes in congress. Democracy has spoken however, so let's see how it'll do.
 
I think it'll be more frustrating to players to barely be able to outinfluence Austria later on with how hard that influence scaling is going to ramp up than having to try and outflank a few more votes in congress. Democracy has spoken however, so let's see how it'll do.
You prefer the freedom of knowing you’ll never beat Austria’s inherent vote advantage than have to try playing against her at a disadvantage?

I guess we could have opted for keeping some part of the WC votes, and dropped the increased resting influence, but every proposal has increased RI to some extent. Your proposal has players trying to both out-do Austria’s influence advantage and try to outflank their extra votes total.
 
Last edited:
You prefer the freedom of knowing you’ll never beat Austria’s inherent vote advantage than have to try playing against her at a disadvantage?

I guess we could have opted for keeping some part of the WC votes, and dropped the increased resting influence, but every proposal has increased RI to some extent. Your proposal has players trying to both out-do Austria’s influence advantage and try to outflank their extra votes total.
Yes, I'd exactly prefer to play at multiple smaller disadvantages than a disadvantage that I think is too large to overcome. The difference in magnitude is what's important here. I predict I'll likely not bother trying to out-influence new Austria and just stick to coups and spheres of influence.
 
Yes, I'd exactly prefer to play at multiple smaller disadvantages than a disadvantage that I think is too large to overcome. The difference in magnitude is what's important here. I predict I'll likely not bother trying to out-influence new Austria and just stick to coups and spheres of influence.
It can be argued that when competing against austria in the late game. Her vote bonus is 1 vote per marriage, but every CS ally she maintains that you feel you "cannot take" is actually 4 votes, 2 she gains and 2 you cannot. So in terms of a competitive DV versus I could see the argument that very high resting influence is actually stronger in the long term.

I think the current vote bonus has to be curbed though if not eliminated, at some point you get enough free extra votes that its just not possible to compete with her.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom