Apostolic Palace broken?

[MrFrodo]

I think the AP adds an interesting dynamic to the game, but it obviosuly has some extreme cases that have not been looked at closely to prevent stupid things like what happened to the OP from happening. Obviosuly, if you are conquering the map and ultra-powerful you shouldn't loose because you happened to conquer a city with this religion. Regardless of the ways that could have been avoided, the end result is just dumb. Once you are conquering everyone at that pace you should be able to forget about the AP, or at least be given significant warning that this side-effect might occur. Something like "Adding this city to your empire would trigger an Diplomatic Election via the AP, do you want to continue?".

It also seems like the path to winning this way, while an interesting manipulation of the rules to get a victory, really isn't very realistic. At least to me, seeding each civ with one weak city that has your reilgion doesn't make you a great leader. Maybe some Jehovah's Witnesses would disagree?

 

[Armor (Veteran)]

I've only played a few games with BTS, but agree that the AP needs some tweaking. I haven't ran into an unexpected loss yet, but it is clear that there is some illogical/frustrating aspects to it, especially on smaller maps with fewer opponents.

Though on the positive side, one bizarre AP incident gave me the biggest laugh I've had in awhile. One game the Germans and a few other nations were utterly kicking the crap out of the Americans. I controlled the AP and tried to stop the war, lest my rivals become too powerful. Oddly, the Americans were the only nation to vote against the resolution to make peace. To top it off, the resolution passed anyway and they defied it! Several turns later they were wiped off the map. Someone must have replaced Abe Lincoln with General Custer!

 

[FrancisMarion]

I've only played a few games with BTS, but agree that the AP needs some tweaking. I haven't ran into an unexpected loss yet, but it is clear that there is some illogical/frustrating aspects to it, especially on smaller maps with fewer opponents.

Though on the positive side, one bizarre AP incident gave me the biggest laugh I've had in awhile. One game the Germans and a few other nations were utterly kicking the crap out of the Americans. I controlled the AP and tried to stop the war, lest my rivals become too powerful. Oddly, the Americans were the only nation to vote against the resolution to make peace. To top it off, the resolution passed anyway and they defied it! Several turns later they were wiped off the map. Someone must have replaced Abe Lincoln with General Custer!

My favorite illogical AP act (there are so many to choose from) is when an AI declares war on you, and then votes to end the war 3 turns later.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

IMO, the AP works well, for the most part. But there are situations where it is flat-out broken, and to avoid these, there should be a few safeguards in place, such as a minimal amount for cities with the AP religion(X% of pop is that religion) or even to state religion...

 

[hoopsnerd]

My favorite illogical AP act (there are so many to choose from) is when an AI declares war on you, and then votes to end the war 3 turns later.

I thought the AP voted every X number of turns... and X has always been much, much greater than 3 in all of my games...

 

[Spearthrower]

The AP votes by triggers not by turns - except for residency.

 

[hoopsnerd]

The AP votes by triggers not by turns - except for residency.

Why doesn't it trigger every time there is a war against a civ of the religion? I don't know all the details about how it works, I'm not complaining

 

[MrFrodo]

I had to attack my poor Native American friends last night because they had constructed the Apostolic Palace before me. They were winning the electins unanimously and the two civs that didn't have the religion yet were on an island next to a smaller island that had the religion. I was also seeing their caravels hanging out there, so I was afraid they would get a quick victory if they spread it, or it spread naturally. I guess that it is kind of fun to be forced to do this, although I would have prefered to ally with them against a mutual annoyance. I had to smash their capital to bits and leave.

 

[gnome]

I think the conflict here is this: from a gameplay standpoint it isn't insurmountable and perhaps not overpowered in that sense. But the rules are so counter-intuitive that it forces the player out of the mood of being an actual world leader, and instead into attending to arbitrary rules of a game. It shatters immersion.

I don't see how having a religion present in just one of my cities could possibly allow a foreign nation an undisputable win, no matter the circumstances. Ok, maybe if it was my only city...

 

[Naismith]

But the rules are so counter-intuitive that it forces the player out of the mood of being an actual world leader, and instead into attending to arbitrary rules of a game. It shatters immersion.

Absolutely! Think about it - limiting spread of the religion to other Civs enhances your chances of winning? Forcing a competing Civ out of the religion (with a spy, say) enhances your chances of winning? It's a diplo victory but you can win without getting any other Civ to vote for you? (I know, the UN victory is the same way, but it is still counter-intuitive.)

 

[IglooDame]

I think it's broken. All the other victory conditions essentially have the player (or AI ) controlling the globe in some major way which would presumably lead to eventual complete control (of this globe, or Alpha Centauri). AP win doesn't do that, and the only other victories you're likely to get that early (conquest/domination) really could become cultural, spaceship, UN diplo, or time victories anyway if you just played them out.

Make an AP victory require that the AP heads the largest religion shared by at least 1/3 (or even better 1/2) of the world's population would bring it more into line with the other victory conditions.

You can leave the non-victory AP voting as-is, though. Having the ability to force war declarations and other diplo options on everyone is an adequate reward for the effort required.

 

[Breunor]

Wow, this is a really neat thread!

I say this because it s one of the few times that I read the last post, and I say, 'Wow, he's right'. Then I read the next one, and say, 'he's right!' And so it goes. Seriously, this usually doesn't happen to me!

I hope people don't mind, then, if I try to summarize here to some degree. I actually think, in reading through this, that there is a lot of common agreement:


- Most people find that the ideas and some of the gameplay issues that the AP adds or at least tried to add are kind of neat.

- The diplomatic religious victory, indeed, can be a neat, and can be turned off if people don't like it

- The main 'issue' people seem to have with the AP is the diplomatic victory. Although many people don't like how other aspects of the AP are implemented (they go to war, they declare peace 3 turns later), the AP victory system causes some consternation

- There are two issues some people have with an AP religious victory; one is intentional exploit as a form of victory for the player, the other is victory by the AI based on some 'illegitimate' method'

- The ability to use it to win for the human player is somewhat in dispute. Clearly, map size matters. AP victory may be the dominant issue in the game on a tiny map; it is virtually a meaningless concept on a huge map.

- Probably the biggest complaint about diplomatic victory comes from a religion allowing diplomatic victory with a minority of the population on the board-- should a declared leader of a religion get a diplomatic/religious victory with 5% of the total population? Here, we do have differences. Some people feel this is fine, some don't. The issue of a religious/diplomatic victory with a religion that has 50% of the population is far less controversial. The power of medieval popes or earlier of the Moslem leaders are examples.

-- The second complaint is the fact that one tiny city in an empire of 50 cities will trigger this loss while holding the other 49 don't


The majority of the discussion is about game mechanics vs. 'good' game mechanics

-- The people liking the AP sdiplomatic victory say that the issues of losing a diplomatic victory are controllable to a large degree, and some for thought and planning can avoid them. Tools are available. Use theocracy, close borders to avoid missionaries, don't conquer people who have large AP votes against the owner, get Mass Media and 'give' it to the AP owner, etc.

-- Others say that although these techniques may work, they are tedious and counter-intuitive. They don't 'flow' with other mechanics. Yes, I can use espionage to see if a city I capture has a religion, and then raise it if it is the AP religion, but this response may not make a lot of sense and is playing the 'literal' expression of the game instead of using solid mechanics. Indeed, 'gifting' Mass Media to the AI because it is too dumb to figure out it should refuse the gift is awkward.

-- Many people who do like the overall concept but don't like some of the implementation feel that there should be some choices of response. One idea was an inquisitor, which could 'rid' a city of the unwanted religion. Perhaps the inquisitor is expensive, so ridding one city is no big issue, by trying to rid many cities could be expensive overall

-- Some of the choices that the AP gets players to think through are kind of neat. A good example is the 'oh no, I have once city with the AP religion' problem. Do I now leave the religion in that city only, so if I defy an AP resolution, it only hits that city; or do I expand the religion, giving me more votes, but making me more vulnerable to defying the vote? This is the kind of decision that the designers wanted us to think through


OK, so my take if there is something close to a majority type decision:

- Keep the AP in some form, for the most part it can add a lot to a game
- Maybe make a 'switch' allowing the AP effects without a diplomatic victory
- If diplomatic victory stays, probably some adjustments should be made, like the inquisitor idea
- Maybe map size should somehow be taken into effect, and maybe there should be a minimum religion size for a diplomatic victory to be triggered

Anyway, I'm hoping to see more here!

Breunor

 

[50_dollar_bag]

^^nicely summed up

I don't remember seeing anybody write that they hated it, so after a few tweaks it could work pretty well.

Previously I'd never had the Diplomatic Victory option available to me, but last night I had to vote against it, and if it wasn't for a sequence of events Genghis probably would have won.

Here's what happened.

Genghis builds the Apostolic Palace around 1000AD under the influence of the most spread religion Buddhism, only Boudicca is Hindu. Genghis is doing pretty well technologically until his cavalry hordes bog him down. He gets voted in as resident several times and annoyingly stops the war with me and Qin Shi Huang 1 turn from taking a city .

So I build up some troops because I'm going to join in on the Genghis-Boudicca war as soon as Genghis asks me, and of course he does then signs peace with Boudicca the next turn . Not to worry I bring in Pacal after I have a bit of trouble with Boudicca's extremely well promoted and numerous troops. I take a few cities and sign her up as a vassal.

Two turns later the vote for a defensive pact with all members, I vote no as Qin is my next target. The vote comes up as a success, . I look at the relations screen and everybody has a defensive pact with everybody except
Ragnar who has only 2 cities .
What to do?

I was about 2 techs away from Mass Media so I went along with the idea of gifting Genghis up to Mass Media to odsolete the Apostolic Palace, would have been a pretty sweet deal for him as he was about 7 techs away.

When I discover Mass Media I start to enact my plan, push F4, and it's still in the relations window and what do I see, everybody has a defensive pact with me and me only, every AI has cancelled their defensive pacts .

So war preparations against Qin start again, then what happens? Qin voluntarily vassals to Genghis . Next turn Genghis declares war on me dragging in the rest of the world against him .
2 turns later he goes for a Religious Diplomatic victory

To be honest I was worried for about 100 turns that he was going to bring Diplo victory up, considering the amount of votes he was winning by with the Resident votes he was getting.

To date that's the most fun I've had with the Apostolic Palace, and never even got a chance to call the shots.

 

[Chrysalis]

I must say that the religious leader victory is beyond irritating. I don't understand how I can have over 50% of the worlds population and lose because ONE of my cities has the same religion as the AP builder. To me it is definitely broken and needs some fixing. I would like to see an option to defy the religious leader implemented. Perhaps if you defy the leader, then the civs that voted for the leader would have the option of starting lets say a "holy war" where war weariness would not be applied, or maybe have some other benifits. I'm just against the instant win, in some circumstances it just cant be stopped.

 

[gettingfat]

I think the AP victory doesn't make sense because if one looks at the big picture, it essentially grants a player a religious victory for failing to spread a religion significantly (all one needs is to convert one city of each player). The more insignificant this religion is in other people's land, the better the chance of winning.

My suggestions to fix this issue:

• "Widespread" criteria: More than half of the cities of each civ should have been converted, indicating many people are believing
• "Active" criteria: More than half of the civs are using the specified religion as the state religion, ie. indicating this religion is still politically active
• Number criteria: Half or more than half of the leaders involved in voting should vote for you (including yourself). So if there are 4 voters, at least 2 should vote for you. This is a diplomatic victory afterall. It doesn't make sense if you own 51% of world population and the remaining the remainding 6 civs consisting of 49% people absolutely hate you, and you still proclaim yourself a diplomatic genius.

 

[Spearthrower]

I think the conflict here is this: from a gameplay standpoint it isn't insurmountable and perhaps not overpowered in that sense. But the rules are so counter-intuitive that it forces the player out of the mood of being an actual world leader, and instead into attending to arbitrary rules of a game. It shatters immersion.

I don't see how having a religion present in just one of my cities could possibly allow a foreign nation an undisputable win, no matter the circumstances. Ok, maybe if it was my only city...

I don't understand why it destroys immersion when it is, symbolically at least, fairly realistic.

If you look at the power the Catholic church had over European Christian nations throughout mid to late Medieval period, it is clear that for all intents and purposes Rome "won" a Religious victory by the simple fact that any leader that opposed them could be excommunicated from the clique.

It wasn't until the Renaissance that you start to see nations powerful enough for their leaders to risk excommunication and directly challenge the church.


Personally to "fix" this, I'd make it a straight percentage.... i.e. ALL leaders must have X religion present in one of their cities (as now) and X % of the world must follow that religion (taking into account cities with multiple religions). This would make spamming a secondary religion a good counter strategy (lowering the overall percentage of the AP religion) and make religion have more of a competitive element.

 

[Tomek]

You did quite nice summary Breunor.
Although I'd like to add my 50 cents to it

Religion
* In my opinion religion already has enough impact to the game - it strongly influences players relations - so (mayby not in a stright way) starts wars and boosts relations

Massmedia
* Depite AP issue it was always iritating for me that when I invented some new tech that cancels effect of a given wonder it affects only me not other tech-undeveloped civs. In my opinion canceling wonders effects should be global (I invented massmedia so it cancels AP somwhere else) - and maybe this is the remedy for the AP issue - IMO there should be consequence: if AP is a global effect (affects civs that didn't even met the civ that bulit it) so it should also be canceled in a global way...
or
techs should be automaticly spread amongst civs via commerce (!) - I can't imagine the situation when my close neighbour has strong foreign trade relation with me and does not have half of the techs I have (including massmedia). TV & radio (Massmedia) was the most mass tech spread all over the world!

Win conditions
* I'm not a warmonger (esspecially I'm weak in most important early war gambits) but I'm in favour of sentence: domination is the only true victory Why? because the s u r v i v a l is the only factor that measures the civilization success. So in that point of view I agree that there should not be sth like religion victory. Religion is the only tool for survival and domination. As well as other 'untrue' victories should be:

diplo: gives you possibility to avoid wars and model the world in the way that suits you most - and reach the domination in that way​

tech (spaceship): - gives you possibility to be competiitive with warfare and reach the domination in that way. Let's be true - spaceship is the only side effect​

conquest: be dominant in the most stright, primitive and usually most effective way​

culture: in the game most overpowered victory: there's not sth like domination by art or soul development in my opinion culture enlighted civilisation should be able to attract immigrants (not only by growing borders) and inthat way grow in total to be dominant​

Reality
To those who stress that Civilisation is not the reality and shouldn't be:
Civilisation is the game that comes from reality. If I don't want to play the game that tries to copy some reality mechanics I play chess or cards.
Civilisation is the reality game and that is we love the game for.
AP in the BTS is not the reality - this is the chess gambit.

Ok... I'll better finish because it's going to be off-topic post

 

[Spearthrower]

Reality
To those who stress that Civilisation is not the reality and shouldn't be:
Civilisation is the game that comes from reality. If I don't want to play the game that tries to copy some reality mechanics I play chess or cards.
Civilisation is the reality game and that is we love the game for.
AP in the BTS is not the reality - this is the chess gambit.

While I accept the opinions in the rest of your post as your own, I definitely disagree here.... what reality are we talking about exactly?

When in reality did people blast off and land on Alpha Centauri?
When in history did someone conquer the entire world?

What did they win when they did it?

It's all in game abstractions. The culture win is no less foolish.

My biggest problem with the general argument that the AP is unrealistic is that people are very anachronistic in their thoughts. Religion had so much more bearing on shaping the world over the countless millenia than science or technology has.

Why do you rate the barrel of a gun higher when guns have only been widely used for a couple of hundred years, but the lull of priest's tongues has held countless billions in check and stability for eons?

We have Conflicting Realities Syndrome, methinks!

 

[Vehem]

I did a little XML-diving and found that the original situation shouldn't have been possible - there is a minimum of 3 players in-play required to vote for a religious victory. I'd have to assume there was another minor player in the game who also had very few votes.

The "fix" for those who want to play with the AP, without the religious victory and with the UN Diplomatic victory enabled would be...

1. Open Civ4VoteInfo.xml in notepad (\Sid Meier's Civilisation 4\Beyond the Sword\Assets\XML\GameInfo\CIV4VoteInfo.xml)
2. Find the following entry

		<VoteInfo>
			<Type>VOTE_RELIGIOUS_VICTORY</Type>
			<Description>TXT_KEY_VOTE_RELIGIOUS_VICTORY</Description>
			<iPopulationThreshold>75</iPopulationThreshold>
			<bCityVoting>0</bCityVoting>
			<bCivVoting>0</bCivVoting>
			<iMinVoters>3</iMinVoters>
			<iStateReligionVotePercent>100</iStateReligionVotePercent>
			<iTradeRoutes>0</iTradeRoutes>
			<bSecretaryGeneral>0</bSecretaryGeneral>
			<bVictory>1</bVictory>
			<bFreeTrade>0</bFreeTrade>
			<bNoNukes>0</bNoNukes>
			<bDefensivePact>0</bDefensivePact>
			<bOpenBorders>0</bOpenBorders>
			<bForcePeace>0</bForcePeace>
			<bForceNoTrade>0</bForceNoTrade>
			<bForceWar>0</bForceWar>
			<bAssignCity>0</bAssignCity>
			<ForceCivics/>
			<DiploVotes>
				<DiploVote>
					<DiploVoteType>DIPLOVOTE_POPE</DiploVoteType>
					<bValid>1</bValid>
				</DiploVote>
			</DiploVotes>
		</VoteInfo>

3. Change

			<DiploVotes>
				<DiploVote>
					<DiploVoteType>DIPLOVOTE_POPE</DiploVoteType>
					<bValid>1</bValid>
				</DiploVote>
			</DiploVotes>

to

			<DiploVotes>
				<DiploVote>
					<DiploVoteType>DIPLOVOTE_POPE</DiploVoteType>
					<bValid>0</bValid>
				</DiploVote>
			</DiploVotes>

This will make the Religious Victory "not valid" and so the vote should not be possible.

====

Alternatively, switch

<iPopulationThreshold>75</iPopulationThreshold>

for

<iPopulationThreshold>100</iPopulationThreshold>

which means that everyone with a city of that religion must agree for the vote to pass.

 

[Aurelius321]

In regards to the 'easy' AP victory where every Civ needs to have at least one city with AP Religion and then when vote comes up it's easy to vote yourself a winner.

There are not very many games when events cause a setup where this 'easy victory' will happen and I don't know about you... But I've played about ten games of BtS so far and the Diplo Victory vote only came up ONCE. Even when it did it was as difficult to win as a real Diplo victory is.

Of course this is anecdotal evidence and I tend to play Normal or Large maps and never small maps... But regardless when you have the difficulty level set and something that is challenging to your skill level I do not believe that such situations will occur too often.

Everybody loves each other on Chieftan... Up the skill a bit see how well everyone gets along.

Flame away