Are puppets in a balanced place?

[pineappledan]

100% / in city
25% ////
no unhappiness/happiness generated in city (unless from a wonder)
puppets are ignored for global needs thresholds calculations
no GPPs in city

That looks like a good plan to me. The question now is what happens to Venice?

Some possibilities:

• Venetian puppets can produce GPPs, and generate 50% ////
• Venetian puppets can produce GPPs, and generate +15% //// in city for every trade originating from that city, up to a max of 5 (5 trade routes= (15%*5) + 0.25 = 100%)
• Venetian puppets can produce GPPs, Trade routes to/from puppets generate 100% of normal yields.

 

[ElliotS]

puppets are ignored for global needs thresholds calculations

If puppets produce 100% food and production I don't think this is needed, assuming the penalties to other yields aren't taken into account.

 

[Gazebo]

100% / in city
25% ////
no unhappiness/happiness generated in city (unless from a wonder)
puppets are ignored for global needs thresholds calculations
no GPPs in city

That looks like a good plan to me. The question now is what happens to Venice?

Some possibilities:

• Venetian puppets can produce GPPs, and generate 50% ////
• Venetian puppets can produce GPPs, and generate +15% //// in city for every trade originating from that city, up to a max of 5 (5 trade routes= (15%*5) + 0.25 = 100%)
• Venetian puppets can produce GPPs, Trade routes to/from puppets generate 100% of normal yields.

No exclusions for wonders in puppets. All or nothing in code.

Venice getting an extra 25% yields as-is, with no other changes to their UA, seems fine to me.

G

 

[Gazebo]

If puppets produce 100% food and production I don't think this is needed, assuming the penalties to other yields aren't taken into account.

The yield penalties would be accounted for, but the global median wouldn’t shift that much as less than 20% of all cities in a game would likely be puppets.

 

[Stalker0]

I think people are focusing on Puppet vs Annexed. The issue is more Puppet vs Non-Expansion (aka TALL).

Before: Puppets give more land and more yields compared to non-expansion. Their cost was increased unhappiness to your civ.

Now: Puppets give more land and more yields....and have 0 cost.

I think this adds to much emphasis on warring. Warring to puppet expand is now significantly better than building a peaceful small civ.

Ultimately, puppetting might have still been better before...but at least there was SOME cost a peaceful player could look at and say "well I don't want that penalty so I'm not going to expand/puppet". With this new system there is none, you are simply playing badly if you choose to stop expanding.

 

[pineappledan]

There is always the opportunity cost of building armies and prosecuting wars. That's time and energy away from wonder-whoring and infrastructure if you think you can get by with the marginal yield benefits of a puppet. Your misgivings are also only valid if you think you can win wars. It stands to reason that winning wars should be rewarded.

 

[Deadstarre]

The issue is more Puppet vs Non-Expansion (aka TALL SMALL).

Lemme help you fix that right there homie =)

 

[tu_79]

Happiness neutral.
No great people points

Don't you get more or less the same by ingnoring unhappiness from needs, and it is simpler?

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Tu_79, I think that way puppets could be happiness positive because of certain buildings etc. Like having a castle and having the Fealty 2nd policy.

 

[Deadstarre]

There is always the opportunity cost of building armies and prosecuting wars. That's time and energy away from wonder-whoring and infrastructure if you think you can get by with the marginal yield benefits of a puppet. Your misgivings are also only valid if you think you can win wars. It stands to reason that winning wars should be rewarded.

Puppets wonderful yields was never the reason to make them. And there are already plenty of policies, beliefs and civs that are designed to compensate and reward those who spent their time and energy on building a military to kill and conquer when they could have been building other stuff. Now just improving the spoils for all the victors, all the time, as if winning wars has not quite been effective enough in determining the winners of games.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I think even with this change, both the more peaceful path to victory and the more warmongering one are still more or less equally viable and interesting in VP. Considering we're close to the end of non-minor VP changes, I think this is and will remain fairly balanced.

 

[Deadstarre]

I think even with this change, both the more peaceful path to victory and the more warmongering one are still more or less equally viable and interesting in VP. Considering we're close to the end of non-minor VP changes, I think this is and will remain fairly balanced.

admittedly thats a saving grace i've noticed repeatedly as well; because the game is so deep and complex getting any one aspect of it wrong barely affects the game on the whole. i do agree that it would remain fairly balanced.

 

[Gazebo]

Current testing version:

No longer produce unhappiness or happiness, period (not even from happiness policies that affect buildings, etc. or beliefs)
Only produce 25% of each yield (except food/production, which are 75%).
No longer produce GP points

Imperialism policy will bring food/production up to 100%, and all other yields to 50%. Venice not affected (is flat 100% regardless).

 

[ElliotS]

Current testing version:



Imperialism policy will bring food/production up to 100%, and all other yields to 50%. Venice not affected (is flat 100% regardless).

I think the 75% food and production will lead to problems. Can we compromise and have it be 75% food and full production?

 

[Gazebo]

I think the 75% food and production will lead to problems. Can we compromise and have it be 75% food and full production?

I'm going to test it at 75% before changing. My logic is this: if puppets are equally as good as annexed cities at building infrastructure/growth and the only downside is that they don't generate as many free yields like culture, there's no incentive to annex them until they've got a nice infrastructure built. At 75%, the efficiency of puppets goes down the longer you leave them as puppets, making earlier annexation more appealing.

G

 

[chicorbeef]

I haven't played a game with the Feb. 27 version (last game I played was with the Feb. 7 version), however I'm not totally sold on the idea of puppets giving no unhappiness/happiness, even if their yields are nerfed. Even if they technically don't produce any happiness conquering puppets still gives new luxuries and raises the population (making luxuries more effective), as well as giving new monopolies, so I think the end result will end up being net happiness. Puppets will also provide supply cap and strategic resources like normal-it shouldn't be so easy for a warmonger to acquire these things. I think puppets will basically feel like vassals on steroids.

I also haven't had too much trouble maintaining a huge puppet empire either-if you keep them small, you could take Thrift, which simultaneously crushes poverty and mines the small cities for gold, and Authority/Fealty does wonders for happiness and infrastructure. I had a game as Songhai where I have 13 puppets and 6 self-founded cities, and my happiness was +38 in the Renaissance Era (again, this is with the Feb. 7 version, not the Feb. 27 one, so tell me if the meta has changed). This was on Immortal difficulty if someone is curious.

I honestly think puppets are mostly fine-keep them small and pick the right policies/beliefs to avoid unhappiness for a large part of the game, and then maybe annex them and get them up to speed (isn't this what the Industry tree is meant for?) if you're suffering from unhappiness. I don't think I'd have a real motivation to annex if puppets were so cost free, and it would be too easy to roll over continents with no unhappiness whatsoever.

 

[pineappledan]

Chicorbeef brings up valid points

Would it be possible to have puppets contribute more heavilly to war weariness? like each puppet on empire is a +5% modifier on total unhappiness from war? The populace of those places are getting dragged into conflicts they don't even feel involve them, so I imagine they would be very sensitive to warmongering

 

[Gazebo]

Chicorbeef brings up valid points

Would it be possible to have puppets contribute more heavilly to war weariness? like each puppet on empire is a +5% modifier on total unhappiness from war? The populace of those places are getting dragged into conflicts they don't even feel involve them, so I imagine they would be very sensitive to warmongering

The code doesn't support a model like that, and can't/won't.

I think he brings up points in favor of puppets, but I hardly think that they tip it in favor of puppets above all else.
G

 

[ElliotS]

there's no incentive to annex them until they've got a nice infrastructure built.

Invested courthouse, faster ability to defensively support your units, the ability to buy units quickly and choosing the order of the buildings + investing for faster rebuilding don't seem like possible reasons to annex? ;D

If we're going to start testing at 75% production that's fine. It might be the correct number. Not exactly what I would intuit, but it would make the imperialism policies more game-changing. (Going from puppets being a mid-way measure to a legitimate way of running your empire. I'm just worried that could make Imperialism feel TOO important.

 

[tu_79]

Tu_79, I think that way puppets could be happiness positive because of certain buildings etc. Like having a castle and having the Fealty 2nd policy.

Only if puppets worked 0 specialists. But specialists is the way to go later in the game.