(6-CP) Tweaked Espionage Overhaul with sabotage production modified

[rkkn]

counterproposal to https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...sion-of-azum4rolls-espionage-overhaul.686239/
which is itself a counterproposal to https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/6-41-espionage-system-overhaul.685902/

This includes all changes proposed by Recursive, plus one extra:

Name	Prerequisite	Effect	Network Point cost	Identify chance	Caught chance
Sabotage city production	Target city must be producing something (not Process).	Completely remove all progress towards the current production. Reduced production is capped at 10 turns of current city Production. Does not undo investments.	1000	20%	10%

changed to

Name	Prerequisite	Effect	Network Point cost	Identify chance	Caught chance
Sabotage city production	none	Reduce city's production output by 50% for 15 turns (multiplicative)	1000	20%	10%

Reason:
It's too punishing in some cases and does very little in other cases.
It can be activated just before a wonder is about to be completed, in which case it's far too punishing. You lose thousands of production, and not only that, but also that wonder is likely no longer possible to be built as someone else will take it.
Or if the city isn't building a wonder, and you just want to stop it from pumping out tons of units... sabotaging production doesn't really do anything. It'll lose maybe 2 turns of production on one unit and that's it.

This change fixes these issues, while preserving (or increasing) the mission's utility.

Also you can still stop someone from building a wonder by activating it when they *first* start building it. And this is also less infuriating to be on the receiving end because you can know that you don't have to waste your time building something that you won't get.
Additionally, this is much easier for the AI to use. I don't know how difficult it would be to teach the AI to hold onto its sabotage production until it can delete an enemy's wonder, but this change avoids the issue entirely.

 

[azum4roll]

-50% production isn't harming top civs much, since it's additive to all the other production bonuses they're getting (the +25% from Seaport/Train Station, for example).
On the other hand, it can be disastrous to civs that are already behind, especially early on.

 

[rkkn]

-50% production isn't harming top civs much, since it's additive to all the other production bonuses they're getting (the +25% from Seaport/Train Station, for example).
On the other hand, it can be disastrous to civs that are already behind, especially early on.

bah, this is why not having any multiplicative modifiers is terrible. additive modifiers skew balance in obscure ways.
Ideally this -50% production is made to be multiplicative.

but even if it's not, this issue is helped by the fact that top civs are much more likely to have spies in their cities.

 

[axatin]

I sponsor this.

 

[Recursive]

Ideally this -50% production is made to be multiplicative.

As this comment was made before the Sponsorship Phase actually began (since I screwed up the time) I'm gonna say the amendment counts.

 

[azum4roll]

That's going to work completely different from the -50% Faith one...

 

[rkkn]

That's going to work completely different from the -50% Faith one...

I don't even know of any faith income modifiers for it to stack with.

Also, it does already work differently since the faith one also *takes* the faith. The spy's empire gets it.

 

[azum4roll]

It works by taking 50% of the base Faith, but after needs calculations.

City Production modifier fluctuates a lot based on what you're producing.

This proposal also reduces Production while working Processes (which include World Congress Projects) which I don't like.

 

[rkkn]

Why on earth would you want to exempt processes? That's the #1 best way to make it easier on civs that are ahead. You work processes when you've already built all your important buildings and units. And when are you most likely to be in that position? When you're already doing extremely well. And even if this weren't the case, ??? Why exempt them?

City Production modifier fluctuates a lot based on what you're producing.

yeah that's why it's better for it to be multiplicative. So its effect doesn't fluctuate with these modifiers. An additive modifier results in a much smaller effect when you've got big modifiers. As a quick example, building a musician's guild with progress+artistry. Your 2.15 production multiplier drops to 1.65. That is only 23% slower.

Also, speaking of modifier stacking, is the reduction on building units when unhappy also additive? If so that would stack very harshly with an additional additive penalty. An unhappy city with a -30% would drop down -80%(!) Could potentially even drop to 0.
Ditto for the over supply penalty. How's that one stack?

 

[azum4roll]

This is now a surefire way to stop someone from winning a world congress project, unless you really are a production powerhouse that -50% can't stop you.

I guess it really can drop to 0 or negative if it's 10+ over supply.

I don't think local unhappiness reduces unit production?

Having a yield modifier be multiplicative breaks all consistency. A player wouldn't know which modifiers are additive and which are multiplicative.

 

[rkkn]

This is now a surefire way to stop someone from winning a world congress project, unless you really are a production powerhouse that -50% can't stop you.

world congress projects are all cities. sabotage is 1 city

I don't think local unhappiness reduces unit production?

it does

A player wouldn't know which modifiers are additive and which are multiplicative.

just note that it's muliplicative. I suggest using the word "final" in the description, like final production output reduced by 50%. but there are plenty of ways to do it, including just saying "multiplicative"