Apostolic Palace broken?

[FrancisMarion]

Would the whole game be better without it?

Yes absolutely

 

[Bandobras Took]

I've had the opposite experience. There have been several games of mine where the Apostolic Palace didn't do a darn thing for me except increase the hammers of my religious buildings.

Usually, I find at least one Civ in the game that won't let my missionaries in, be it through Theocracy or good old-fashioned closed borders.

 

[Smythen]

At least we can all agree that the OP's game was absurd -- two civs left, and the one with the AP votes himself the winner -- it needs a-fixin'!!!! I have usually found that the AP isnt quite that effective, but in one game, I had to reload to avoid an AP victory with the 3 remaining civs. Luckily, I was able to change my tech to mass media and turn my tech back up to 100%, thwarting his effort by one turn!!

 

[Kark]

I find the AP quite amusing. It shows how difficult it is to deal with a fanatic religious leader.

But maybe the standard BtS game needs the Inquisitor from "Gods of old".

 

[Spearthrower]

For everyone suggesting to build it yourself -- that helps to prove that its broken!! If the game models a potential world where the civilization (Holy Roman Empire in our real-world case) who build the AP is the one who will nearly always win, then its absurd. The AP is too powerful and needs to be a little nerfed.

If this was the actual situation then yes, you would be right.... but I think you have overstated the case more than a little.

It's hardly an "I win" button. Naturally map size and difficulty factor in a lot. Try getting the AP diplo win with 18 AI's on a huge map - it's just not going to happen. Actually what happens in 75% of games is that the AP has very little bearing on the game.

It's a game element and you have to roll with it. Understanding its mechanisms you can then use it in your favour, or at the very least deny a victory to the AI. Yes of course there are going to be some situations where the AI could win, but everyone would be complaining if the AI couldnt win by AP diplo victory too.

While the obvious answer is to build it, this doesnt calculate to meaning it's broken any more than you'd say "Build the GW"..... you can still win the game without the AP, you just need to think more and adopt an appropriate strategy.

As already mentioned, if the AI builds it and you dont have the AP religion in any of your cities, then run Theocracy and that's it solved.

If you already have the state religion, then spread it through your cities to take the voting power (and boni).

Honestly, some people enjoy these layers of complexity..... it seems like so many people here want a 2 dimensional turn based war game where the AI is only allowed (and praised) to pursue a militaristic strategy.... here you have a case of the AI winning by using an in game mechanic that is transparent to the player and people start claiming its broken. I say - learn from it.

 

[arstal]

Solution: Inquisitor Unit, or option to suppress a religion.
Effects:

-1 with all civs which vote in AP for that religion, or have it
+1 happiness in city if no religion 10 turns
-1 population each time used
Chance of removing religion based on population- lower the better
Religion can pop back up unless you go theocracy

 

[FrancisMarion]

Honestly, some people enjoy these layers of complexity..... it seems like so many people here want a 2 dimensional turn based war game where the AI is only allowed (and praised) to pursue a militaristic strategy.... here you have a case of the AI winning by using an in game mechanic that is transparent to the player and people start claiming its broken. I say - learn from it.

It doesn't add a layer of complexity; it adds a layer of annoyance. 90% of the time it's absolutely worthless other than the +2 hammers and the +2 diplomatic points for voting for a friend.

The rest of the time it's either extremely frustrating if you don't have it, e.g. demanding you stop trading with an ally or forcing you to give back cities you've taken in conquest.

OR

When it is useful i.e. when you control it, it's entirely illogical. I've had civs declare war on me, and then vote to end the war against me. How does that make any kind of sense? And the declarations of Holy Wars is absolutely devestating. I had the entire world declare war on an AI with me simply because they had 1-2 cities with my religion so their votes didn't mean much but they're still bound by the decision, and some of these AI were friends with the victim. 5% of your population follows a particular religion so you're going to go to war with your neighbor and friend of 3,000 years cause some asshat with a funny building told you to?

It would be my most hated new feature if Corps didn't exist and the fact it's utterly pointless most of the time.

 

[FrancisMarion]

Solution: Inquisitor Unit, or option to suppress a religion.
Effects:

-1 with all civs which vote in AP for that religion, or have it
+1 happiness in city if no religion 10 turns
-1 population each time used
Chance of removing religion based on population- lower the better
Religion can pop back up unless you go theocracy

love this idea btw

 

[Common Sensei]

The way the AI reacts to having the relgion of the AP but not having the AP itself is to spread it to all of its cities. This not only defended against the Diplomatic Victory, but one had the religion as their state religion and was eligible for Diplomatic Victory too.

A Theocracy of a different religion with a little of the AP's religion will be vulnerable, though.

 

[FrancisMarion]

Spreading it to all your cities only increases the consequences of Defying a Resolution, and is no protection against a large voting bloc.

 

[nullspace]

A Theocracy of a different religion with a little of the AP's religion will be vulnerable, though.

Right, so a theocracy can't capture any city that has the AP religion. You would have to raze each one.

It's just that the AP victory seems fast, easy, and cheap compared to other victory conditions. And it's strange that having just one small city for a short time with the AP religion can cause you to lose. It think that the AP religion should have to affect a certain percentage of the world population in order for it to count as a victory.

 

[Emp. Killyouall]

Simple solution- disallow winning through AP, but keep the other options.

 

[Spearthrower]

It doesn't add a layer of complexity; it adds a layer of annoyance. 90% of the time it's absolutely worthless other than the +2 hammers and the +2 diplomatic points for voting for a friend.

The rest of the time it's either extremely frustrating if you don't have it, e.g. demanding you stop trading with an ally or forcing you to give back cities you've taken in conquest.

OR

When it is useful i.e. when you control it, it's entirely illogical. I've had civs declare war on me, and then vote to end the war against me. How does that make any kind of sense? And the declarations of Holy Wars is absolutely devestating. I had the entire world declare war on an AI with me simply because they had 1-2 cities with my religion so their votes didn't mean much but they're still bound by the decision, and some of these AI were friends with the victim. 5% of your population follows a particular religion so you're going to go to war with your neighbor and friend of 3,000 years cause some asshat with a funny building told you to?

It would be my most hated new feature if Corps didn't exist and the fact it's utterly pointless most of the time.

I respect your opinion, but you have to laugh at one thing: you managed to say that it's both pointless and causes extreme game conditions in one paragraph. Surely that says that it is not so easy to define. It is circumstantial and very much depends on the game conditions.

The best line for me though is:

90% of the time it's absolutely worthless other than the +2 hammers

That makes it 100% of the time worth it for me!

 

[FrancisMarion]

I'm saying that most of the time it doesn't have an impact, but when it does it's usually an undesired one in terms of adding to the gameplay. Those 2 statements aren't contradictory at all, and I'd say it's very easy to define; it's bad on multiple levels

Maybe I'll like it better after a patch when they work out the kinks but for now it's a either
1) might as well not be in the game
2) serves to annoy the player
3) provides the player with overpowered options. (permanant peace, multi civ dogpiling, forced return of cities)

 

[jpinard]

I'm saying that most of the time it doesn't have an impact, but when it does it's usually an undesired one in terms of adding to the gameplay. Those 2 statements aren't contradictory at all, and I'd say it's very easy to define; it's bad on multiple levels

Maybe I'll like it better after a patch when they work out the kinks but for now it's a either
1) might as well not be in the game
2) serves to annoy the player
3) provides the player with overpowered options. (permanant peace, multi civ dogpiling, forced return of cities)

Do you konw where in the xml this thing resides. If it's "annoying" I think I want to remove it or pare down its effects.

 

[gaiko]

The best line for me though is:

That makes it 100% of the time worth it for me!

Same here! I love the hammers! Kinda like a universal Anger What for hammers.

But I think this thread covers only a particular corner case: 2 civs on a tiny map where the AI civ has got the AP. In that case _only_, yes, you either have to build it yourself or you have to be able to quickly take out the AP city or you have to beeline/gift Mass Media (to the AI who will no doubt stupidly accept it ).

But it is this case _only_ that a fix could be argued for, AFAICS. It does not apply to the more usual general case from my experience (usually Large maps) where there are plenty of civs to dilute its effect. In the general case you do not "have" to get the AP - it's optional and it is just another game feature to take into account if the AI gets it (and clearly the thread initiator was completely blindsided by this new feature).

In general the AP may need tweaking/balancing in the case where one city gets "contaminated" with the AP religion, but yet you are now subject to becoming a "global villain" and the +5 should you defy the AP resident. This should be changed to requiring that the AP religion comprise some % of your pop before being subject to such onerous penalties.

But overall I like the addition of this kink to the mid-game. It does present a reasonable challenge and gives Theocracy a more general use beyond simply cranking out promoted units.

 

[occam]

Very often people post stories from one or more game(s) they have played as evidence supporting some larger claim.

I am always confused why this is never accompanied by some argument why those examples were important/typical/representative etc. One or two outlier games given the thousands that our community plays... those would just be dismissed out of hand by any rational reader. It would be a much greater miracle if every game worked out smoothly with no surprises.

But it gets worse .... the example seems atypical!

In this particular example, mindloss (the OP) was harmed due to ignorance of gameplay mechanics as well as the power of the AP. In fact, it begs the question would mindloss get burned like that ever again, even given the same settings? Scientific minds want to know!

(As a side note, the notion of defy-able resolutions but binding victory votes is what annoys me.... why can't I just defy the victory claim and suffer the penalty? It seems like all votes have gameboard effects except one vote that teleports you off the gameboard and ends the game, so weirdly mixed in power.)

 

[Quotey]

This is my post from another topic i created on the same subject; I feel it should be carried on here.

One of my first BTS games, and I lost to Gilgamesh because he was Hindu and I was blocked off from attacking him because of Sitting Bull.

I didn't really know anything about the AP, and I didn't know you could win with it (I barely glance at the Victory Conditions screen until someone gets into the Space Race). For all I knew it was a bloddy annoying Wonder that stopped me trading with everyone.

A little backstory- I'm not Hindu because two other Civs really didn't want me to be. I think it was... Cyrus and some person with green cultural borders. I defeated them and just never really changed back to Hinduism, and was warring with Sitting Bull, one or two cities to go when BAM- Gilgamesh wins. He votes for himself and wins. A diplomatic victory.

I probably sound bitter, and I am a little, but, honestly, doesn't anyone see this as a silly thing and a problem?

I can't think of any solution, and I'll probably edit out the AP because, honestly, next time I'm playing on continents I don't want to get any further down the drain when the other guys already are buddies with the same religion, but are voting on eveything.

e: It's not that I'm a sore loser; I'd be fine if Gilly here had been building up units all game and just destroyed me, it's just I wouldn't want to lose because Isabella gets Meditation, the AP and never spreads her religion (which I admit isn't likely, but replace with any appropriate leader)
Though I might not be included in the AP at that point, I think they'll still be able to pose resolutions, correct?

 

[meatwad4289]

wonder if its possible to remove the victory yet keep AP and UN.

I won on accident on my first BtS game. I built up massive military was preparing to take out my enemies.. And the vote popped up for AP, first time I saw the option for diplo, so I decided, Ok I'd see who liked me(they will eb the last to die) I abstaned from voting, believing I had more than enough votes that saying no would make sure I could continue the game... I completely forgot about my colony, and the fact that it was 75% Jewish and a little less than half my size....

I won... by one vote... only Me and someone with 13 votes voted no.... ..

 

[Spearthrower]

I probably sound bitter, and I am a little, but, honestly, doesn't anyone see this as a silly thing and a problem?

No, in all honesty and with full respect.... you got beaten.

Either you artificially stipulate the ways in which the AI can beat you by turning off all the unwanted victory conditions and making it a 2 dimensional, simplistic war game..... or you learn to negate the effect of an AI controlled AP.

I'd be happy to be beaten like this - it would show that the AI is doing what its supposed to do, and I'd have died trying to stop them. From your story, you didn't even know what was going on, so you "deserved" to lose.

I'm not saying you have to be a great player, but learning to deal with an AI controlled AP is no different than learning to play with a Monty next door, or a foreign tech whore..... you just need to adapt your tactics accordingly.