Ideally I think we could stand to have a few more proposals right out of the gate. I feel that the first WC congress are a bit shallow when it comes to options. But ultimately I would rather see just a few really solid proposals added, I don't think spamming out like 8-10 proposals will do much to improve things.
Community Feedback: New/Changed World Congress Proposals
- Thread starter Recursive
- Start date
Ideally I think we could stand to have a few more proposals right out of the gate. I feel that the first WC congress are a bit shallow when it comes to options. But ultimately I would rather see just a few really solid proposals added, I don't think spamming out like 8-10 proposals will do much to improve things.
So the issue is that on Immortal+, Spheres are necessary to be able to hold CS allies. On Emperor I can generally hold some allies with concerted effort (in which the debate is whether that effort is worth the benefit), but on Immortal the AI spams diplo units like crazy. You see 3k influences on CS often. Without spheres you just don't have any tools to combat that.
That said, your not wrong that it can be a boring proposal. The irony is when I'm playing DV focused, I'm almost always going for more spheres. When I'm not are the times I actually get to play with the WC.
So I would be fine with teh removal or reduction of spheres if we were able to adjust the higher level AIs so they can't spam diplo units. (aka diplo units cost more for them so it consumes a bit more of those big bonuses to make them or something).
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
@2506 , in what sense do you find my post contradictory?
@Stalker0 , I understand what you mean. In my thread with ideas for VP, I proposed three things that might make long-term fighting for CS alliance more realistic for more civs, including human players (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/some-ideas-for-vp-and-or-modmods.664250/ - points 13, 21 and 37). To that we could add some more ideas for discussion, such as introducing a scaling cost for diplo units (so the more you build/buy, the more expensive they become to build/buy), introducing a cool-down period for using non-GD diplo units in a particular CS (so for example you can only use a diplo unit in a CS once every xyz turns, so you can't use 5 diplo units in 2 turns in Cahokia etc.), introduce a system where diplo units cost increases for each CS ally you have (so if a civ has 5 CS allies it'll have higher costs to diplo units than a civ than only has 1 CS ally).
@Stalker0 , I understand what you mean. In my thread with ideas for VP, I proposed three things that might make long-term fighting for CS alliance more realistic for more civs, including human players (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/some-ideas-for-vp-and-or-modmods.664250/ - points 13, 21 and 37). To that we could add some more ideas for discussion, such as introducing a scaling cost for diplo units (so the more you build/buy, the more expensive they become to build/buy), introducing a cool-down period for using non-GD diplo units in a particular CS (so for example you can only use a diplo unit in a CS once every xyz turns, so you can't use 5 diplo units in 2 turns in Cahokia etc.), introduce a system where diplo units cost increases for each CS ally you have (so if a civ has 5 CS allies it'll have higher costs to diplo units than a civ than only has 1 CS ally).
Last edited:
1) Scaling Cost: The thing is, at the end of the day if the AI is building 10 diplo units to take a CS....well then I have to use 10 diplo units to counter....so we are both paying the price, except the AI has hammers to spare and I don't. Also, this just makes statecraft even more powerful for CS play than it already is.
2) Cooldown for Diplomat Placement: Still favors the AI. AIs could in theory just have 1 diplomat at every single CS, and just plunk them down when teh cooldown expires. The AI would actually excel at this, as they can mindless track the durations, whereas we humans are likely to forget and start getting inefficient with our diplo placements. This would again favor statecraft, as passive influence bonuses get a lot stronger because they cannot be directly countered, and GD play becomes a lot stronger.
3) Diplo cost increase for each CS ally: There is some merit here.... crafty humans could in theory milk this by timing their diplo unit productions and then generate allies all at once. However, they would take a fair amount of paper to be effective, and if you have that much paper then some optimization tricks I think are a fair reward.
The thing here is, this only penalizes 1 civ from controlling all the CS.... its doesn't stop multiple AIs from just divying out the CS pie, leaving the human out in the cold.
Honestly I think at the end of the day the solution is "simple" conceptually... diplo units should just cost more for the AI....likely enough to balance out their normal production bonuses. This is a simple recognition that the AI production bonus was designed to balance out AI economic and military inefficiencies. Military units are countered by terrain and human tactics (though a case for naval units could be made), and economy is balanced by superior human economy building and various rubberband tactics. But there is no equivalent for diplo play.... more hammers = more units = more influence....period. There is no human counter for that (save spheres of influence). So the counterbalance would be to make the units more expensive for the AI so that they can produce the same amount of diplo units as a human can, and therefore everyone competes on the same playing ground.
Now is that easy to code, no idea.... but I think its the "right" approach if you really want to tackle the problem.
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
Stalker, I see where you're coming from, but to me there's a bad feel to giving a special malus to the AI, as far as I know there's no such precedent (outside of gamewide malus due to difficulty level) in VP and I'd like to avoid that. But perhaps that could be an option that could be toggled either in game settings or in modfiles?
My rationale for reducing the diplo units is that my feeling (I could be wrong!) is that humans are better at fulfilling CS quests, so that would be in human favour. Maybe Gazebo can shed some more light on how good AI is with CS quests compared to human players. Also, if we took into account the proposals I linked in the above post, then that would be more helpful for human players (more CS quests etc.).
Ultimately though, I have no problem with the human player having to work extra hard on higher difficulties to maintain CS alliances, it's a symptom of higher difficulties that everything is harder for human players compared to the AI. For myself I see a problem in one or two AI easily getting the vast majority of CS alliances, because it leads to AI runaways, so I'd be more in favour of a system that allows more AIs to be competetive with CS alliances. But above all, I wish the CS system was more realistic (like I outlined in my proposals, your resting point for influence with a particular CS would rise/fall due to certain actions etc.) instead of now where it's ultimately down to brute force of how many diplo units you can crank out.
Edit to add: Perhaps we could have a cutoff point where abvove a certain amount of influence with a CS you cannot use diplo units, so you can only further raise your influence by CS quests. That would perhaps be a way to prevent endless CS spamming of diplo units, but that would then require a fairer CS quest system.
My rationale for reducing the diplo units is that my feeling (I could be wrong!) is that humans are better at fulfilling CS quests, so that would be in human favour. Maybe Gazebo can shed some more light on how good AI is with CS quests compared to human players. Also, if we took into account the proposals I linked in the above post, then that would be more helpful for human players (more CS quests etc.).
Ultimately though, I have no problem with the human player having to work extra hard on higher difficulties to maintain CS alliances, it's a symptom of higher difficulties that everything is harder for human players compared to the AI. For myself I see a problem in one or two AI easily getting the vast majority of CS alliances, because it leads to AI runaways, so I'd be more in favour of a system that allows more AIs to be competetive with CS alliances. But above all, I wish the CS system was more realistic (like I outlined in my proposals, your resting point for influence with a particular CS would rise/fall due to certain actions etc.) instead of now where it's ultimately down to brute force of how many diplo units you can crank out.
Edit to add: Perhaps we could have a cutoff point where abvove a certain amount of influence with a CS you cannot use diplo units, so you can only further raise your influence by CS quests. That would perhaps be a way to prevent endless CS spamming of diplo units, but that would then require a fairer CS quest system.
I’m not going to drop it that easily
let’s remember that the difficulty system is not a dirt simple “give AI Bonus X and go”. Many games do exactly that, but VP has a far superior model.VP gives different bonuses for different things and for different times. It’s more tailored to deliver greater challenge while at the same time ensuring as much fair play as possible, using a levers at its disposal.
this is simply another lever, designed with the recognition that AI bonuses are “unfair” when it comes to the diplomatic game, and we make a nice surgical change to fix that....which is ensuring that AIs cannot leverage their prod bonuses to make more diplo units than the human.
The AI still gets plenty of bonuses, we aren’t fundamentally changing the system, it’s just tuning.
Why is that not preferred to suggestions that would fundamentally change how the diplo game is played? It seems at the very least, we should use the scalpel first, and if that doesn’t work then we bring out the hammer
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
Hmm... I don't think I can recall another example of VP/us recognizing an AI bonus/advantage that would be unfair and specifically targetting the AI through that? If anything VP sometimes recognizes the inherent advantage of the human player (for example by giving extra sight to AIs military units), but not the other way around, as far as I know?
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
Some brainstorming ideas for new resolutions (I don't have good ideas for their names
):
Religious aedicts (mutually exclusive with Separation of Church and State)
- Costs of missionaries, inquisitors & GPs (great prophets) (perhaps also faith-purchases of buildings?) decreased by xyz% ,
- passive religious pressure increased by xyz%,
- each holy city a civ controls grants 1 vote in WC,
- religious attrition of missionaries decreased by xyz
Separation of Church and State (mutually exclusive with Religious aedicts)
- Costs of missionaries, inquisitors & GPs (perhaps also faith-purchases of buildings?) increased by xyz%,
- passive religious pressure decreased by xyz%,
- missionaries can no longer enter major civ territory without open borders,
- all non-founders can faith-purchase Pagodas.
Both resolutions would be available immediately upon WC founding
///
Two mutually exclusive resolutions:
Law/Rules of Warfare (can be standalone or incorporated into Global Peace Accords)
- No HP/gold bonus from Pillaging improvements,
- cannot pillage TRs in territory owned by a major/minor CV the TR owner is not at war with,
- cities can no longer be razed,
- unhappiness from occupation (annexation without courthouses) increased by xyz,
- xyz% production malus to courthouses (so slower production of courthouses)
Homo Homini Lupus (can be standalone or incorporated into Casus Belli)
- HP/gold bonus from Pillaging improvements increased by xyz HP/%,
- gold bonus from pillaging TRs increased by xyz%,
- speed of razing cities increased by xyz%,
- when a city is completely razed get xyz yields as instant yields (culture? gold? science?), scaling with era,
- unhappines from occupation decreased by xyz%,
- captured civilian units no longer get prisoner of war malus.
///
Two mutually exclusive resolutions
Autarchy
Internal TRs and ETRs with CS grant +xyz% yields (perhaps a malus to ETR to major civs?)
Global trade network
Trade routes to major civs grant +xyz% yields (perhaps a malus to ETR to CS and ITR?), further +xyz% if the major civ is granting open borders.
///
Non-aligned movement
-CS allies do not declare war on behalf of their allies (so they no longer get entangled in wars unless they're directly DoWed),
-DoWing a CS resets influence level with all CS to xyz (we can discuss whether it should be the minimum/-60 or something less harsh)/alternatively "influence with all CS decreased by xyz",
-DoWing a CS has increased warmonger penalites,
-gifting a military unit to a CS at war with a major civ takes 1 turn (not 3 as usual) (the double influence gain from that should already be in effect because the CS usually asks for units when at war with a major civ?)
- a CS bonus to CS units/cities
///
Ban strategic resource
Introduces a global ban on trading a certain strategic luxury, removes monopoly bonuses from that strategic luxury, military units requiring that strategic luxury get +/-CS% (we can discuss whether we want them to get a CS bonus or malus and how much).
///
World Corporation
+xyz trade route slots for world corporation owner,
+xyz WC votes,
can send TRs to sanctioned civs if franchise limit hasn't been reached yet or if the target city has the WC franchise (can establish WC franchises in sanctioned civs),
franchise limit increased by xyz.
///
That's it for now, I'll hopefully add a few more today and then also post my thoughts on proposals by others, some are great!
):Religious aedicts (mutually exclusive with Separation of Church and State)
- Costs of missionaries, inquisitors & GPs (great prophets) (perhaps also faith-purchases of buildings?) decreased by xyz% ,
- passive religious pressure increased by xyz%,
- each holy city a civ controls grants 1 vote in WC,
- religious attrition of missionaries decreased by xyz
Separation of Church and State (mutually exclusive with Religious aedicts)
- Costs of missionaries, inquisitors & GPs (perhaps also faith-purchases of buildings?) increased by xyz%,
- passive religious pressure decreased by xyz%,
- missionaries can no longer enter major civ territory without open borders,
- all non-founders can faith-purchase Pagodas.
Both resolutions would be available immediately upon WC founding
///
Two mutually exclusive resolutions:
Law/Rules of Warfare (can be standalone or incorporated into Global Peace Accords)
- No HP/gold bonus from Pillaging improvements,
- cannot pillage TRs in territory owned by a major/minor CV the TR owner is not at war with,
- cities can no longer be razed,
- unhappiness from occupation (annexation without courthouses) increased by xyz,
- xyz% production malus to courthouses (so slower production of courthouses)
Homo Homini Lupus (can be standalone or incorporated into Casus Belli)
- HP/gold bonus from Pillaging improvements increased by xyz HP/%,
- gold bonus from pillaging TRs increased by xyz%,
- speed of razing cities increased by xyz%,
- when a city is completely razed get xyz yields as instant yields (culture? gold? science?), scaling with era,
- unhappines from occupation decreased by xyz%,
- captured civilian units no longer get prisoner of war malus.
///
Two mutually exclusive resolutions
Autarchy
Internal TRs and ETRs with CS grant +xyz% yields (perhaps a malus to ETR to major civs?)
Global trade network
Trade routes to major civs grant +xyz% yields (perhaps a malus to ETR to CS and ITR?), further +xyz% if the major civ is granting open borders.
///
Non-aligned movement
-CS allies do not declare war on behalf of their allies (so they no longer get entangled in wars unless they're directly DoWed),
-DoWing a CS resets influence level with all CS to xyz (we can discuss whether it should be the minimum/-60 or something less harsh)/alternatively "influence with all CS decreased by xyz",
-DoWing a CS has increased warmonger penalites,
-gifting a military unit to a CS at war with a major civ takes 1 turn (not 3 as usual) (the double influence gain from that should already be in effect because the CS usually asks for units when at war with a major civ?)
- a CS bonus to CS units/cities
///
Ban strategic resource
Introduces a global ban on trading a certain strategic luxury, removes monopoly bonuses from that strategic luxury, military units requiring that strategic luxury get +/-CS% (we can discuss whether we want them to get a CS bonus or malus and how much).
///
World Corporation
+xyz trade route slots for world corporation owner,
+xyz WC votes,
can send TRs to sanctioned civs if franchise limit hasn't been reached yet or if the target city has the WC franchise (can establish WC franchises in sanctioned civs),
franchise limit increased by xyz.
///
That's it for now, I'll hopefully add a few more today and then also post my thoughts on proposals by others, some are great!
Last edited:
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
Tarzan's proposals:
Ban a civ from trading for a strategic resource - That to me seems interesting, I like it!
A resolution to make peace - I think in many cases such a resolution would become moot because between the proposal and the vote in most cases the war would already be over, plus I'm not sure how the mechanics would work, would it be a white peace even if one civ had a really good warscore? And ultimately it's not fun or realistic to be forced into a peace.
///
InxAxis
Peacekeeping forces - I had a similar idea, but then I thought that it'd be better if something like that was a global resolution for all CS, not just one, especially as (with the above resolution to make peace by Tarzan) often the war would already be over by the time it came to a vote.
///
Solic
I like the idea of luxury subsidies, potentially very rewarding for a civ.
World Corporation: I think your proposal is a bit too strong with the +1 vote per TR with major civ, that's potentially 7 extra votes (more on larger maps) and that's really a lot, too much in my opinion. When you say world corporation's bonuses are doubled, do you mean all bonuses (to franchises, offices, extra TR,...) or just some?
///
Stalker
Geneva convention - after thinking about it, I'm not sure how the civilian units part would work code-wise, but if that's possible to code, it would be something interesting. As for TRs, I think they should still be pillagable in your own territory and in the enemy's territory, because if not, then you lose a big part of how to increase warscore.
Economic Relief Package
I see this as something interesting, but a bit exploitable by human players and a bit counter-intuitive. Also, not sure how it would work exactly. Let's say you have -25 gpt, but then with this bounus you jump to +35gpt, do you still retain the bonus? Also it seems a bit unfair that if I have -1gpt, I get +10% gold, but not if I have +1gpt, it seems a bit too much all or nothing?
Free trade
It seems a bit too much of a no brainer to pass, it would benefit all equally (except the likes of Portugal, Ottomans,...), so not sure what would be the benefit of this as a new resolution?
World Council Expansion
I like the shorter intervals between the sessions, but the +1 vote seems a bit problematic in the sense that the #4 often has almost the same amount of votes as #3 and sometimes it's like that for even more civs, so that would be "too good" for a lot of civs and would kinda penalize the civs that try the most for votes.
Free religion
Interesting proposals! Have you thought about merging the two?
Acquatic commerce act
Interesting proposal!
Equality for all
I like this
///
Hinin
Anti-bloc Act - I like it
Blue berets - I like it
WM Standars - I don't play with research agreements enabled, so I can't really comment on this proposal.
Global monetary fund seems to me to be very overpowered, you'd get insane amounts of gold and yields from processes.
///
2506
Security Council - I like it
Suspension, Expulsion, Pariah - uff, interesting, but I think ultimately they're vastly too strong and game-changing...
Supermajority - if possible to code, that'd be great for proposals such as sanctions
///
Azum4roll
I also like your version of Blue Berets
Baning strategics - I had the same idea, I like it
Not sure I understand the "distribute gold uniformly"? Also, what do you mean "permanently" - if your GPT plummets to #2, what happens to that bonus?
I like the idea of having a resolution dealing with spies.
Would your religious resolution apply to all cities or only cities of founders?
///
HungryForFood
I like the Convention idea of traversing sea tiles, but only if we can code the ability to ask to move your troops
Geneva convention
Agreed on the no razing. Not sure about no population loss, paradoxically it would ultimately help warmongers in my opinion to get stronger cities & more yields?
WTO - I had a similar idea, but I wanted it to be a bit double-edged (see my proposal)
UDHR - interesting proposal, I think I like it
///
Hinin #2
Shadow Council - I like the turn reduction, but I fear the forcing of vote to be too hard to vote for the AI and ultimately it could lead to a civ not having any votes freely available to vote?
I like the Polar Discovery.
////
Solic #2
I too was toying with the idea of a terrain-based resolution. Like you said, it might be a bit too hard to code for the AI, but something connected with terrain would be welcome.
///
Stalker #2
I like the CS protection bloc.
Ban a civ from trading for a strategic resource - That to me seems interesting, I like it!
A resolution to make peace - I think in many cases such a resolution would become moot because between the proposal and the vote in most cases the war would already be over, plus I'm not sure how the mechanics would work, would it be a white peace even if one civ had a really good warscore? And ultimately it's not fun or realistic to be forced into a peace.
///
InxAxis
Peacekeeping forces - I had a similar idea, but then I thought that it'd be better if something like that was a global resolution for all CS, not just one, especially as (with the above resolution to make peace by Tarzan) often the war would already be over by the time it came to a vote.
///
Solic
I like the idea of luxury subsidies, potentially very rewarding for a civ.
World Corporation: I think your proposal is a bit too strong with the +1 vote per TR with major civ, that's potentially 7 extra votes (more on larger maps) and that's really a lot, too much in my opinion. When you say world corporation's bonuses are doubled, do you mean all bonuses (to franchises, offices, extra TR,...) or just some?
///
Stalker
Geneva convention - after thinking about it, I'm not sure how the civilian units part would work code-wise, but if that's possible to code, it would be something interesting. As for TRs, I think they should still be pillagable in your own territory and in the enemy's territory, because if not, then you lose a big part of how to increase warscore.
Economic Relief Package
I see this as something interesting, but a bit exploitable by human players and a bit counter-intuitive. Also, not sure how it would work exactly. Let's say you have -25 gpt, but then with this bounus you jump to +35gpt, do you still retain the bonus? Also it seems a bit unfair that if I have -1gpt, I get +10% gold, but not if I have +1gpt, it seems a bit too much all or nothing?
Free trade
It seems a bit too much of a no brainer to pass, it would benefit all equally (except the likes of Portugal, Ottomans,...), so not sure what would be the benefit of this as a new resolution?
World Council Expansion
I like the shorter intervals between the sessions, but the +1 vote seems a bit problematic in the sense that the #4 often has almost the same amount of votes as #3 and sometimes it's like that for even more civs, so that would be "too good" for a lot of civs and would kinda penalize the civs that try the most for votes.
Free religion
Interesting proposals! Have you thought about merging the two?
Acquatic commerce act
Interesting proposal!
Equality for all
I like this
///
Hinin
Anti-bloc Act - I like it
Blue berets - I like it
WM Standars - I don't play with research agreements enabled, so I can't really comment on this proposal.
Global monetary fund seems to me to be very overpowered, you'd get insane amounts of gold and yields from processes.
///
2506
Security Council - I like it
Suspension, Expulsion, Pariah - uff, interesting, but I think ultimately they're vastly too strong and game-changing...
Supermajority - if possible to code, that'd be great for proposals such as sanctions
///
Azum4roll
I also like your version of Blue Berets
Baning strategics - I had the same idea, I like it
Not sure I understand the "distribute gold uniformly"? Also, what do you mean "permanently" - if your GPT plummets to #2, what happens to that bonus?
I like the idea of having a resolution dealing with spies.
Would your religious resolution apply to all cities or only cities of founders?
///
HungryForFood
I like the Convention idea of traversing sea tiles, but only if we can code the ability to ask to move your troops
Geneva convention
Agreed on the no razing. Not sure about no population loss, paradoxically it would ultimately help warmongers in my opinion to get stronger cities & more yields?
WTO - I had a similar idea, but I wanted it to be a bit double-edged (see my proposal)
UDHR - interesting proposal, I think I like it
///
Hinin #2
Shadow Council - I like the turn reduction, but I fear the forcing of vote to be too hard to vote for the AI and ultimately it could lead to a civ not having any votes freely available to vote?
I like the Polar Discovery.
////
Solic #2
I too was toying with the idea of a terrain-based resolution. Like you said, it might be a bit too hard to code for the AI, but something connected with terrain would be welcome.
///
Stalker #2
I like the CS protection bloc.
I am not sure if that's too strong. They can be prevented via war and sanctioned civs wouldn't be affected. It's also not super easy to have a TR connection to every other civ, especially on maps with oceans. Nevertheless, it can just be rebalanced to for instance +0.5 vote. I do think it's fun to have some kind of manipulatable aspect towards the number of votes like world religion has. I meant it as straight up doubled bonuses for all aspects (might be too strong too, but all numbers mentioned can just be tweaked, it's more about the concept). I like your version too and upping franchise limit, seems like a fun thing too.
Luxury subsidies would fill an early game gap in resolution variety that is currently felt, so I really think there is something to that idea. Could also potentially make it more valuable in deal AI by providing extra benefits if you're trading it away. Adds a lot to the complication though.
As a preamble, I don't find either Sphere of Influence or Open Door too strong, and see them fail often enough. Now with regard to the contradiction I see: you say Sphere of Influence is too strong, then (correctly) add that Open Door is a counter that's easier to pass, and also a no-brainer. If that were correct, then the two resolutions would seem to counter each other well enough... leaving neither in need of dilution.
But again, I just think we like different things. Your proposals to existing resolutions generally strike me as diluting them, whereas I mostly like them as they are. I'm much more interested in new proposals, and have seen merit in a lot of what's been proposed.
LifeOfBrian
King
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
- Messages
- 757
Thanks for the reply, 2506! Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess I should have clarified a bit - I dislike that often the WC late-game will become a game of only a few resolutions, with Sphere of Influence (SoI) and Open doors being two of them. If I see a civ that has a potential to become a DV winner, my main focus in the WC will be to propose/vote for Spheres of influence (for myself or third-party civs, not the potential DV winner) or, if that's not feasible, for Open doors for as many CS as possible, and the other part of the focus will be voting against that civ's Sphere of influence proposals (or proposing to repeal those enacted Sphere's of influence). It's just a no-brainer to pick one of the (whichever you think has more chances of being passed in the WC), except in rare circumstances when another go-to resolution comes up (sanctions, travel ban,...). If at some point you start to have a majority in the WC, then it's just SoI, SoI, SoI and, once you run out of CS, you go repeal any remaining open doors resolutions that have been passed and after that you go for passing SoI on them. Why bother with other proposals if those two are so instrumental in either achieving DV or preventing it?
But if those two resolutions were nerfed a bit, then I'd be much more inclined to let someone pass a SoI on a CS because I'd know that other AIs (or myself) could still be that CS' ally, and that would enable me to focus on other resolutions. And the same with Open doors, if I knew Open doors wouldn't prevent someone from becoming that CS' ally, I'd be more inclined to look at other wortwhile resolutions.
As for dilution, I see nerfing some that are imho too strong/no brainer (sanctions, SoI, open doors, World Fair,...) so that the late game won't continue to mainly focus on a select few of those.
Oh, forgot to add. You mentioned that you see these two resolutions fail often - true, I see that as well. But that doesn't change the fact that they're very strong, that's why often there will be a strong opposition to them, but that won't prevent the AI (or myself as a human) to keep trying to push them through instead of proposing/voting for/against something bland as Natural Heritage sites that really doesn't influence the game compared to SoI/Open doors.
But if those two resolutions were nerfed a bit, then I'd be much more inclined to let someone pass a SoI on a CS because I'd know that other AIs (or myself) could still be that CS' ally, and that would enable me to focus on other resolutions. And the same with Open doors, if I knew Open doors wouldn't prevent someone from becoming that CS' ally, I'd be more inclined to look at other wortwhile resolutions.
As for dilution, I see nerfing some that are imho too strong/no brainer (sanctions, SoI, open doors, World Fair,...) so that the late game won't continue to mainly focus on a select few of those.
Oh, forgot to add. You mentioned that you see these two resolutions fail often - true, I see that as well. But that doesn't change the fact that they're very strong, that's why often there will be a strong opposition to them, but that won't prevent the AI (or myself as a human) to keep trying to push them through instead of proposing/voting for/against something bland as Natural Heritage sites that really doesn't influence the game compared to SoI/Open doors.
I see your point here. More variety would be preferable. I'm hoping that adding more resolutions will lead to not just more fun for the human, but more choice for the AI. The latter means the new ones have to have enough appeal to the AI to pull them away somewhat from their current favorites.
InkAxis
King
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
- Messages
- 779
I don't buy that we can't reduce the bonus for this specifically. I feel like you have things valued weirdly. Like, how does having an AI bonus be even matter at all? And we do have a precedent of reducing AI bonuses, as well as doing it for specific things like WC projects. But it doesn't really matter at all, like "precedent" or having even AI bonuses don't mean anything while having a fun balanced game matters a lot.
Let me go ahead and move this to own thread, I think we are starting to clutter this one up a bit with a different topic.
Update: Here we go: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-bonuses-for-diplomatic-units.670526/
Last edited:
It's an instant-effect resolution like Global Liberation. Everything happens at the time the proposal is passed, and you can keep proposing it every time if you want to.
All cities with a majority religion (so not neutral/religionless). It's supposed to make religion "stabler".
