(9-WD) Sovereignty obliteration

[hokath]

Motivation:
Some people had a bit of an allergic reaction to the border blob version which is more hollistic toward border growth rate for all players.
That's understandable if you like how Authority currently plays. However I do believe Sovereignty is a bad mechanic:

Just in isolation, I think Sovereignty really needs to go.
It's one of those effects that scales in the late game, but in an Ancient Tree.
Furthermore, it actually gets stronger, which is somewhat pathological.
Finally, and most importantly perhaps, the effect it has is completely opaque. This is because you need to know that the exponent is 1.35 and that it gets reduced to 1.08 (i.e. almost-linear).

So I offer this more targeted change as an alternative.

---

Proposal:

• Change Sovereignty to
  • Remove 20% exponent decrease
  • Add +100% local border growth on the Court Chapel
  • Add 3 Border Growth Points to Shrines, Stone Works, and Temples
    Stone Works are niche but good for production. This lets you bring it forward in the build order in the relevant Cities
• Sovereignty renamed to Ceremony and text moved over
  Ceremony fits better on the religious policy
  this is a minor change for Enlightenment Era where a tech exists with the same name. It breaks civilopedia. Since we're changing this now, we can take the opportunity to fix it here.
• Ceremony renamed Mysticism
  A civ staple that somehow failed to make it into Civ V
  the new text would read
  "Mysiticism comes from the Ancient Greek word meaning ''to conceal'' and referred to the liturgical and spiritual aspect of early Christianity. Today the word encompasses all range of extraordinary or supernatural experience. Control over, and participation in, such events lent much credibility to rulers throughout history, in both religious and political domains."

---

References:
This is a counterproposal to

Thread '(9-06) Border Expansion Yields Rework I'

Jan 1, 2026

Motivation
Border Blob is defined as going full Authority tree and dipping 2 policies into Tradition to get Sovereignty. This combines the following 2 policies to create very high border expand yields that continue throughout the entire game:

• Imperium: Cities gain 20 Production and Gold when their borders expand, scaling with Era (40 if all Authority policies are adopted).
• Sovereignty: Culture cost of tiles reduced by 20% (exponentially) in all Cities.

Sovereignty is a confusing policy as reducing the exponent by 20% takes it from 1.35 to 1.08 which is a HUGE...

• redrum68
• Replies: 17
• Forum: Failed Proposals

• 

 

[FPXI]

I have two questions here is How big of a nerf is this pure tradition? And how badly does this hurt the flexibility of civs that currently depend on border expansion (Spain, Russia, the Celts sometime). Tradition is already less flexible that the other two ancient trees and can't really be taken situationally. It would be really bad (although better than the current border blob situation) if this harmed tradition generally. And I think this is probably a pretty big hit to Russia.

I'm still in favor of it regardless. But these are the considerations I'm thinking about.

 

[hokath]

Early on it kinda breaks even. Sovereignty works out as about 50% on the first border pop. Therefore, this gives BGP on Shrine equivalent to old-Sovereignty-boosted Monument.
If you Shrine-first it's a straight up buff to the first border expand rate which is one of the main reasons I went for this rather than e.g. -25% Culture Cost to expand borders (flat bonus like Angkor Wat)
Later its ofc a nerf. Hard to say exactly when, but quite soon (current effect is that good). If you are Tradition Russia this will be a big hit.
I haven't addressed balance of civs that "rely" on border blob to do well because I think that's for the next congress pending this decision. But some alteration is likely necessary.

 

[redrum68]

Add 3 Border Growth Points to Shrines and Stone Works

I really think its better to include a third building here especially since Stone Works is limited. I have Temple in the base proposal which I think works well. Removing the exponent is even a large nerf to early border growth so better to make sure we give enough flat BGPs. I think we want Tradition to feel in your words "thick" and make sure cities are getting enough border growth to get some early tiles.

 

[redrum68]

I have two questions here is How big of a nerf is this pure tradition? And how badly does this hurt the flexibility of civs that currently depend on border expansion (Spain, Russia, the Celts sometime). Tradition is already less flexible that the other two ancient trees and can't really be taken situationally. It would be really bad (although better than the current border blob situation) if this harmed tradition generally. And I think this is probably a pretty big hit to Russia.

I'm still in favor of it regardless. But these are the considerations I'm thinking about.

Generally border growth alone isn't that strong especially given the current meta around specialists being quite good so you don't really need many tiles. I think as long as we give enough border growth percentage/flat bonuses then Tradition should still be fine.

This will hurt Tradition Spain/Russia/Celts quite a lot which is one of the reasons I added changing the base exponent from 1.35 to 1.3. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up having to buff their UAs/UPanths a bit. You can compare those yields to Authority border expand yields and see that Authority tends to be much higher. Plus those are UAs/UPanths that are meant to be good throughout the game vs Authority is a early tree meant mostly for early yields.

 

[FPXI]

I agree with a third building, indifferent to which, and even think a 4th would be interesting (2 ancient, 2 classical)?

 

[Stalker0]

Don’t use a niche building like stone works, pick any ancient building thst is consistent. You have the pick of the litter

 

[Stalker0]

This will hurt Tradition Spain/Russia/Celts quite a lot which is one of the reasons I added changing the base exponent from 1.35 to 1.3. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up having to buff their UAs/UPanths a bit. You can compare those yields to Authority border expand yields and see that Authority tends to be much higher. Plus those are UAs/UPanths that are meant to be good throughout the game vs Authority is an early tree meant mostly for early yields.

Which is why you buff those civs rather than change general mechanics that impact everyone. “This civ will be weaker” is no rationale to change the base boarder growth for the entire game for all civs

 

[azum4roll]

Tradition Spain/Russia/Celts

Do they exist outside of border blob?

 

[redrum68]

Which is why you buff those civs rather than change general mechanics that impact everyone. “This civ will be weaker” is no rationale to change the base boarder growth for the entire game for all civs

The base growth is too slow. Again the main reason is at least 1/3 of games (Tradition) play with 1.08 exponent so trying to split the difference a bit makes it more reasonable. And truthfully probably close to 50% of games as there are a lot of more peaceful/builder players than crazy deity warmongers.

Do they exist outside of border blob?

Ha. Only if you house rule border blob out. But if you do then you should always play Russia as Tradition. Spain/Celts are a bit different as Celts can take other panths and Spain's has a lot of other strong bonuses so its border expand yields can almost be ignored if you play them aggressively.

 

[azum4roll]

The base growth is too slow

I've never found them too slow, and I'm almost always on Progress.

 

[Alpakinator]

What happens if lets say 30% vote on 9.06a and 29% on 9.06b. They have almost identical change to sovereignty, so should it be implemented since 59% voted for the common part?

 

[Stalker0]

What happens if lets say 30% vote on 9.06a and 29% on 9.06b. They have almost identical change to sovereignty, so should it be implemented since 59% voted for the common part?

it’s whichever option (including no change) gets the most votes. For these we do allow people to vote for multiple options if they are comfortable with either change

 

[Alpakinator]

it’s whichever option (including no change) gets the most votes. For these we do allow people to vote for multiple options if they are comfortable with either change

But in my example 41% would be against both. SO from one perspective both proposals lost. From another, the common part they share won.
Edit: I see. So according to the rules both proposals would lose.

 

[hokath]

pick any ancient building thst is consistent. You have the pick of the litter

Like what? Barracks maybe? The others are used already.
There is a reason to include Stone Works. Did you not think it is a valid reason?

I really think its better to include a third building here especially since Stone Works is limited. I have Temple in the base proposal which I think works well.

Sure, it's later so it doesn't upset the very-early balance but gives some staying power. It also further harmonizes our proposals which is good.

 

[redrum68]

But in my example 41% would be against both. SO from one perspective both proposals lost. From another, the common part they share won.
Edit: I see. So according to the rules both proposals would lose.

I think a lot of it comes down to how people utilize multi-voting. Do you vote for anything that is better than the current state or do you vote for the one you really want? Its not a perfect system. In theory, a ranked voting would be better but probably a little more complex.

 

[hokath]

You have to decide if you can live with the other one passing instead of yours.
Instant runoff would be cool but we don't have the tech for that. It's not strictly better either, there are no perfect voting systems sadly. That's like a law of psephology.

 

[redrum68]

You have to decide if you can live with the other one passing instead of yours.
Instant runoff would be cool but we don't have the tech for that. It's not strictly better either, there are no perfect voting systems sadly. That's like a law of psephology.

Oh I meant more generally even when you don't have a horse in the race. I think different people probably view the multi-voting differently.

 

[hokath]

This is no longer necessary because the base proposal adopted the changes

Proposal Withdrawn

 

[Recursive]

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