[Vote] (6-20 & 6-21 & 6-22) Manufactory, Forge and Pantheon Proposals

Approval Vote (select all options AND combinations you'd be okay with)

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .
Not open for further replies.


Already Looping
Dec 19, 2017
Voting Notes
  • 6-20 and 6-21 can be voted on independently, but the reason behind the changes is related to the balance effects of the 6-22 proposals, so you may or may not want to pass both / all three changes at once.
  • 6-22, 6-22a, and 6-22b are mutually exclusive (thank goodness)

Current Forge
  • +1 :c5science:.
  • 1 Engineer Specialist.
  • Nearby Iron provides +1 :c5production: and +1 :c5gold:, and Copper + 2 :c5gold:.
  • Nearby Mines gain +2 :c5production:.
  • Engineers gain +2 :c5production:.

Current Engineer Specialist
3 base :c5production: (+2 with Forge).

Current Goddess of Wisdom
  • +2 :c5faith: Faith and :c5science: Science in Cities with a Specialist.
  • +1 :c5science: Science and :c5faith: Faith in every City.
  • +2 :c5greatperson: Great Scientist Points in the Capital/Holy City.

Current Earth Mother
  • +1 :c5faith: Faith and :c5culture: Culture from Mines with improved resources.
  • +1 :c5faith: Faith and :c5production: Production from Monuments.

6-20: @Stalker0's Proposal (Goddess of Wisdom Change)
You can read the discussion about this proposal here

Proposal: Goddess of Wisdom - Increase per city faith from +1 :c5faith: to +2 :c5faith:. Remove +2 :c5faith: faith from having a specialist.

My problem with wisdom is in order to get decent faith out of it, you basically have to go merchant specialists (libraries take too long to get online). so that's weird thematically, and wisdom isn't all that strong at the moment. This change would allow wisdom to generate faith from raw power expansion, and then you can go libraries and get big science should you want to. It still has a specialist incentive in the +2 :c5science: science, but now that the faith is better covered you can afford to delay those specialists a bit should you need to.

6-21: @phantomaxl1207's proposal (Yet Another Manufactory Buff)
You can read the discussion about this proposal here

Proposal: Add +3 :c5production: Production to Manufactories at Architecture.

Rationale: There's a point in early Industrial where Manufactories are not much stronger than Steam Power Mines, 8 Production Mines vs 11 Production Manufactories (both on hills). In Industrial, Manufactories gain yields from Factories and +3 Production from Fertilizer. I'm not suggesting moving the tech boost from Fertilizer down because there's also a tech boost for Mines at Combustion.

Host Note: There is a currently passed (but unimplemented) change which makes Manufactories count for adjacency bonuses for all improvements that have them. If this proposal is passed, that other proposal will need to be re-proposed in order to be implemented (as the balance of the Manufactory will have sufficiently changed).

6-22: @adan_eslavo's proposal (Nerf Mines to Increase the Gap Between Them and Manufactories)
You can read the discussion about this proposal here

Proposal: Change +2 :c5production: Production bonus to Mines on Forge (and all UBs related to it) to +1 :c5production:.

Rationale: @phantomaxl1207 suggested that the gap between Mines and Manufactories in the Industrial Era becomes to short. This is mostly because Mines are buffed by 4 techs, while Manufatories by only 3. What's more, Mines get a huge +2 :c5production: bonus from Forges in Classical Era. He suggested to buff Manufactories even more, but they are already quite powerful improvements. Instead we (me and @pineappledan) initially thought about taking 1 :c5production: from Steam Power technology or removing whole +1 :c5production: bonus from Combustion, but the ideal solution will be probably taking 1 :c5production: from Forges. The reason is this is bonus is early and much more impactful that these small tech boosts (one in Industrial and one in Modern Era).

New ForgeOttoman's Siege Foundry
  • +1 :c5science:.
  • 1 Engineer Specialist
  • Nearby Iron provides +1 :c5production: and +1 :c5gold:and Copper +2 :c5gold:.
  • Nearby Mines gain +1 :c5production:.
  • Engineers gain +2 :c5production:.
  • +3 :c5production:.
  • +50% :c5production: towards Siege Units.
  • All Siege Units trained in the City receive the Volley (+50% :c5rangedstrength: Combat Strength vs. Fortified Units and Cities) promotion for free.
  • When you construct a Unit in this City, gain :c5science: Science equal to 20% of the Unit's :c5production: Production cost.
  • Nearby Copper provides +1 :c5production: Production and +1 :c5gold: Gold, rather than +2 :c5gold: Gold.
Common traits:
  • +1 :c5science:.
  • 1 Engineer Specialist.
  • Nearby Mines gain +1 :c5production:.
  • Nearby Iron provides +1 :c5production: Production and +1 :c5gold: Gold.
  • Engineers gain +2 :c5production:.

As you can see even after this nerf, Forge still is a powerful building with many very good bonuses, with the buffed Engineer being the main one.

6-22a: @pineappledan's proposal (Move Forges Earlier and Nerf Them)
You can read the discussion about this proposal here

Forge/Siege Foundry (building)
Move from Iron Working to Bronze Working
Reduce :c5production: Cost from 150 to 110
Reduce bonus to mines to +1 :c5production:
Remove +2 :c5production: to Engineer specialists

Colossus (wonder)
Move from Metal Casting to Iron Working
Reduce production and policy requirements to match

Earth Mother (pantheon)
Rename to God of Fire
Increase bonus to Mines on Resources from +1 :c5faith::c5culture: to +1 :c5faith::c5culture::c5production:
Remove +1 :c5production: to Monuments
Add +2 :c5faith: to Forges

Tech changes:
Increase base Engineer to 4 :c5production:
Reduce :c5production: from chopping forest/jungle from 40 to 25 on Bronze Working
Add 25 :c5production: from chopping forest/jungle to Iron working (total of 50 with bronze working)
Add +1 :c5production: to Engineers at Metal Casting (back up to total of 5, same as now)

This fixes a few deficiencies I see in the ancient era bottom techs, mines, and pantheons.
  • 1 more ancient building so we don't need so many pantheons doubled up on monuments
  • resuscitates Bronze Working, which doesn't quite have enough neat stuff on it to feel like a priority right now. Spears, SoZeus, iron resource, and chop yields doesn't feel like a priority when I could go top tree and get by on archers alone.
  • The big chop bonus is nice, but it feels kind of like a gimmick to me. I couldn't make it work for me as an actual strat to rush wonders etc. I think reverting it back to the split with bronze/iron makes it less wacky
  • There was a sentiment that +2 :c5production: to all mines was too good, and a nerf to Forges passed in a previous congress, but was never implemented.
  • While mines are generally considered too good, the Mine pantheon is generally considered weak. So, weaken mines, and move that strength over to the pantheon.
  • Moves engineer specialist into ancient. merchants are no longer the only ancient specialist. Goddess of Wisdom now has another option for specialist to take on the opposite side of the tech tree instead of being locked to Trade. This makes that pantheon much more flexible. This addresses @Stalker0 's complaint in this other proposal
  • Tutelary god's bonus to engineers no longer unlocks way back in classical. This makes it more viable and more consistent with other pantheons, which all unlock their abilities in ancient.
  • Earth mother/God of Fire can augment Forge now and give higher faith on Forges, so it has more power after unlock. Also the double-incentive to unlock forges cushions the gamble on revealing iron for the pantheon. Right now it feels too risky to pick Earth Mother and then hope you have some iron hidden, but if the augmented building is also on that tech then the iron reveal is buffered with a guaranteed bonus.
  • Adding an extra +1 :c5production: to GoFire effectively reverses the mine nerf to Forges. This partially replicates the passed (but unimplemented) proposal to make Forge give +2 to resources and +1 to naked mines, which would have required some complex new code.
  • Moving Colossus earlier fills a small hole left in the Iron Working tech. The Colossus has a stronger thematic link to being with Swords (It was legendarily built out of the melted down blades of an army that failed to lay siege to Rhodes). Colossus also feels relatively weak for a late Classical wonder, considering Petra does more and comes 1 full era earlier. Metal Casting is not hurting for unlocks now that both Forest and jungle lumber mills unlock there.
  • Remove the +2 :c5production: to Engineer specialists on Forge because it makes no sense. The Forge is the first building with an engineer specialist, so there is no good reason for it to also add yields to that specialist. You could just add the yields directly onto the base engineer and remove the text, then add a tech boost at metal casting to bring it up to the same power. The only way you could have a specialist slot without Forge is if you get the Royal Guardhouse from Tradition, so this might constitute a tiny buff to that policy, which seems both fair and good.

6-22b: @Legen's proposal (Move Forges Earlier and Nerf Them, But Leave Chopping Bonuses Untouched)
You can read the discussion about this proposal here

The same as pineappledan's proposal, except without the change to Bronze/Iron Working forest/jungle chopping bonuses.

The original counterproposal has overall good points, but the removal of chopping bonus there is a random thing that is completely unrelated to mines, quarries, Earth Mother, God of Craftsmen, Forges, Engineers, a.k.a. any core element involved by it and the proposals it counter proposes. It's inclusion isn't related to balance concerns either, as the OP considers it a gimmick that he doesn't know how to make use of. That proposal can be simplified, as to not make the chopping on Bronze Working an afterthought as it used to be at its old value, nor mess up with the players that do get use out of the current chopping bonuses.
Last edited:
I can see a trend where double and triple packs are just staying on the back ranks. I don't know why even bother to make that choices available. Do you take them into account if "singles" are winning?
I think it is possible that people vote for "singles" and also the "double" or "triple" that match them at the same time. This is probably why "singles" are in the major lead. Look at the "Voters" and sum up the "singles" votes.
Last edited:
You're supposed to vote a, b, c and NOT individual ones if you absolutely want all of them to pass.

Maybe if we rename the choices to something like "Yea to a, Nay to b and c"?
I'm honestly very confused about the wording of this.

Voting Notes
  • 6-20 and 6-21 can be voted on independently, but the reason behind the changes is related to the balance effects of the 6-22 proposals, so you may or may not want to pass both / all three changes at once.
  • 6-22, 6-22a, and 6-22b are mutually exclusive (thank goodness)
Does this mean if 6-20 or 6-21 passes (what does passing mean in this case, getting the most votes of all options? getting more votes than the Nay votes?) do the votes for the 6-22 options get counted separately and one of those could also win? I know what I want to vote for, but I don't know how to do it. Having a single "Nay to everything" feels insufficient. How do I cast a vote if I'm opposed to all of the 6-22 options and 6-21, but want to vote Yea for 6-20? Yes, I can vote for something and also for Nay, but the Nay carries equal weight against all the other options that are independent, as far as I can tell.
In multi-polls, anything not listed in your "yea" is by default a "nay".

Passing is the highest total, period. So if 6-20 and 6-21 have 55% and 60% votes, then ONLY 6-21 will be implemented. If the option "6-20 and 6-21" has 65%, then both will be implemented.

If you only want 6-20 to pass, just vote the first option.

Approval Voting
A voting poll will include the main proposal and all counterproposals as options, as well as an option for no changes. Everyone votes for all options they would be happy with, including combinations of options and contradictory options. This method is known as approval voting.

If an option receives at least 25 votes in favor and more votes than any other option, it will be selected. If "no changes" got the most votes, nothing happens. If an option for changes got the most votes, it will be added to the next release of Vox Populi once the coding work for it is complete.
I think this one deserves a rerun with the options being more clearly presented.

The first option should be "Yea to 6-20, Nay to 6-21, 6-22, 6-22a and 6-22b", for example.
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom