(5-VT) God of Expanse Buff

[pineappledan]

Current situation
God of the Expanse Pantheon belief
+34% Faster Border Growth. Gain 20 Faith and 10 Production every time a City expands its borders naturally, scaling with game speed.

Last congress, a proposal changed all other border growth bonuses in the game from plot cost reductions to BGP modifiers.
This was done because multiple plot cost reductions stack exponentially, and they could combine to greatly increase border expansion. The total number of plot cost reductions also exceeded -100%, so it was possible to bottom-out the bonuses at an artificial minimum of -80% reductions.
This change to BGP modifiers is a broadly positive change, but it was done with no compensation for the GoExpanse pantheon, which relied on the stacking effect of plot costs and had its yield rate calibrated based on that. With the new border growth bonuses, GoExpanse has become almost impossible to found with.

Spoiler here is a list of all the border growth bonuses in the game, what they used to do and what they do now :

All civs that aren't Mongolia and Russia at least have access to monuments, which used to combine with GoExpanse to give -50% plot culture cost. This is equal to 200% of regular border growth.
The new Monument + GoExpanse combine to give 168% of regular Border Growth. A difference of 32%. This means that GoExpanse is giving its 20/10 on tile claim at 5/6ths the rate that it used to.

Proposal:
Increase God of the Expanse Yields on Border expansion to 25 Faith and 15 Production

Reasoning
This increases the faith by 25% more yields than GoExpanse gives now.
Compared to the old GoExpanse:

this will give a little more yields per turn when combined with a Monument (20*100 = 30*0.68) as compared to when this ability gave cost reduction​

This is compensated by the ability giving fewer tiles​

It will synergize less with additional sources of border growth bonuses, like Russia, Mongolia, and Angkor Wat​

This change will keep GoExpanse's synergies weaker than it was, but the rate that the pantheon generates Faith in the early game for most civs will be almost back to what it was before, but with a little more production.

 

[Rosete]

I don't think it needs a buff. I consistently see AI prioritized snagging this very early on and founding with it no problem.

 

[ma_kuh]

AI consistently values this belief as "best", even without synergies. Now this might be an evaluation error, but as it stands it's very unlikely for me to even get to play with GoExpanse unless getting first pantheon. So making the AI steal it more than it already does doesn't seem great.

 

[pineappledan]

AI consistently values this belief as "best", even without synergies. Now this might be an evaluation error

That's exactly what it is. The AI has flavors for beliefs in the backend, and it weighs GoExpanse artificially high.

I can sponsor. super easy.

 

[rkkn]

The AI has flavors for beliefs in the backend, and it weighs GoExpanse artificially high.

is fixing this part of the proposal?

 

[pineappledan]

Re-weighting abilities is outside of my ability. It requires access to the DLL.

doing a pass on AI weights to make them better at assessing options would just be AI improvements that don't need to go through congress. You don't need the community to give you the green light for "make the AI better".

 

[Barna1]

I think the calculations in this proposal might be incorrect. If I understand correctly, old expansion rate with monument and pantheon was 200%, new one is 168%. So the new one is 5/6 of the old one, and not 2/3. To compensate for yields, only a 20% buff would be needed, not 50%.

 

[rkkn]

I think the calculations in this proposal might be incorrect. If I understand correctly, old expansion rate with monument and pantheon was 200%, new one is 168%. So the new one is 5/6 of the old one, and not 2/3. To compensate for yields, only a 20% buff would be needed, not 50%.

Indeed. How did I not notice that? Good catch.

Does this mean a re-vote?

 

[Stalker0]

Indeed. How did I not notice that? Good catch.

Does this mean a re-vote?

MAGI: Yes a change like this would trigger a re-vote (though if we are really technical, every vote so far as "jumped the gun", as we haven't officially started voting phase yet).

@rkkn do you want it to be 20%?

 

[rkkn]

MAGI: Yes a change like this would trigger a re-vote (though if we are really technical, every vote so far as "jumped the gun", as we haven't officially started voting phase yet).

@rkkn do you want it to be 20%?

@pineappledan

 

[pineappledan]

Yikes, a pretty major oversight on my part. 20% is a weird increment, so maybe it should be 25 (25% increase from 20) and 15 (50% increase from 10)?

That compensates for the reduced synergies with other tile claim abilities and fewer tiles claimed in total, which are their own bonus. The yields per turn would be a little higher than it was before, but the value of the synergies and size of your borders still mediates that.

Edited OP with new values and reasoning

 

[Stalker0]

Proposal is having a revote due to a core change in the proposal. New thread has been made for this.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.