GoodRevrnd
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 144
This. Also, instead of that flat 10%, use flanking bonus w/ DOF partners.
Declarations of Friendship
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
This. Also, instead of that flat 10%, use flanking bonus w/ DOF partners.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Quote spam incoming! 
We can get friendly diplomatic relations with fellow militaristic leaders. They don't care how warlike we are, so if we don't attack citystates they're protecting (or denounce their friends) they usually have a decent opinion of us.
We can get friendly diplomatic relations with fellow militaristic leaders. They don't care how warlike we are, so if we don't attack citystates they're protecting (or denounce their friends) they usually have a decent opinion of us.
I think what mitsho means is peaceful leaders get more of a bonus if warlike leaders kill off a bunch of people. This is already sorta in the game though... and I can't think of a way to add more of an effect like this without a somewhat complicated/opaque algorithm.
This is basically my thinking too.
Well there seems to be quite the array of opinions as to the nature of RAs and DoFs. In a related field, perhaps if we keep the DoF requirement linked to RAs, we could throw militaristic civs a bone as well.
Idea:
Conquering an enemy capital of a civilization that has more techs researched than you grants a small tech boost to represent captured technology.
Idea:
Conquering an enemy capital of a civilization that has more techs researched than you grants a small tech boost to represent captured technology.
Txurce
Deity
That sounds good... but my main problem with RAs is the passive, seemingly arbitrary DoF requirement.
Txurce
Deity
I went back to the original reason for requiring DoF's, which I believe was a nerf to warmongers. My own sense of warmongering is that it's no easier than most other win conditions, but that's fairly subjective. However, I thought about the results of the "what level do you most enjoy playing at" poll, and came away with one runaway conclusion: the overwhelming majority of responders like to play at a level where they can win pretty comfortably in whatever style they choose. In my opinion this takes away from the "DoF's balance warmongers" perspective, because the underlying truth is no balance is needed: most of us play at a level where the balance is tilted most enjoyably in our direction.
Dunkah
Emperor
That is a pretty briliant conclusion Txurce.
And I love Sneaks idea.
(no Quote Spam).
And I love Sneaks idea.
(no Quote Spam).
Ahriman
Tyrant
To toss some of my views into this thread:
My objection to the current system is that the bonuses from DoF start getting too large, particularly with Porcelain Tower and Rationalism boosts, while the ability to get DoFs can be quite arbitrary.
I worry we get punished too much for an isolated start, or for being on a continent of warmongers, which leave us unable to sign DoFs, which leave us behind in tech with nothing we can do about it.
So, I think having the RA = DoF is fine, but I would reduce the bonus slightly, and would remove the synergy with Rationalism and Porcelain Tower (latter is too strong, former isn't logical; why should Rationalism necessarily synergize with a peaceful playstyle? Nazis and Soviets were certainly both rational and pro-science), and replace these with other effects.
Maybe, a 1 shot X-beaker research boost from adopting Rationalism (gives incentive to adopt early), and free tech from Porcelain tower isn't so bad.
I'd like to see line of sight and ability to upgrade in allied territory, but I see no need for a combat bonus. Why should I be better off fighting in allied territory than in my home territory?
I also don't like mixing City states with DoFs. Why should I get larger bonuses from having an alliance who has a small empire but lots of city states than I do from having an alliance with someone who has a big empire with no city states?
I think diplomacy, allied territory = home territory benefits, and a small science boost are fine, and the trade boost for open borders works fine now.
I don't see any need for cultural diffusion.
My objection to the current system is that the bonuses from DoF start getting too large, particularly with Porcelain Tower and Rationalism boosts, while the ability to get DoFs can be quite arbitrary.
I worry we get punished too much for an isolated start, or for being on a continent of warmongers, which leave us unable to sign DoFs, which leave us behind in tech with nothing we can do about it.
So, I think having the RA = DoF is fine, but I would reduce the bonus slightly, and would remove the synergy with Rationalism and Porcelain Tower (latter is too strong, former isn't logical; why should Rationalism necessarily synergize with a peaceful playstyle? Nazis and Soviets were certainly both rational and pro-science), and replace these with other effects.
Maybe, a 1 shot X-beaker research boost from adopting Rationalism (gives incentive to adopt early), and free tech from Porcelain tower isn't so bad.
I'd like to see line of sight and ability to upgrade in allied territory, but I see no need for a combat bonus. Why should I be better off fighting in allied territory than in my home territory?
I also don't like mixing City states with DoFs. Why should I get larger bonuses from having an alliance who has a small empire but lots of city states than I do from having an alliance with someone who has a big empire with no city states?
I think diplomacy, allied territory = home territory benefits, and a small science boost are fine, and the trade boost for open borders works fine now.
I don't see any need for cultural diffusion.
Txurce
Deity
I just finished a game with Korea where everything went well - yet a normal-sized but pop-heavy Polynesia was one tech ahead of me when I won the space race.
While I do have an issue where civs with 6-9 cities can wind up in the 120-180M pop range, the point here is that I averaged about one DoF for the entire game despite being below average in score and having no army. What was the problem? Half the globe thought I was trying to win the same way they did, or they coveted my three Wonders.
The present DoF system is wildly erratic and near-totally passive. That's not good game play. I have no problem reducing the benefits of RA's to a level that doesn't make them OP - but as was said at the top of this thread, getting them should be in the hands of the player... not the AI.
While I do have an issue where civs with 6-9 cities can wind up in the 120-180M pop range, the point here is that I averaged about one DoF for the entire game despite being below average in score and having no army. What was the problem? Half the globe thought I was trying to win the same way they did, or they coveted my three Wonders.
The present DoF system is wildly erratic and near-totally passive. That's not good game play. I have no problem reducing the benefits of RA's to a level that doesn't make them OP - but as was said at the top of this thread, getting them should be in the hands of the player... not the AI.
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
Did you denounce other civs in that game?
Txurce
Deity
I denounced the Aztecs well into the game, long after they had denounced me. This actually gained me one DoF, and a warming of relations with a few others (as planned).
I didn't find this game particularly unusual. There are games where I have significantly more DoF's, although never as many as I did with much earlier versions of VEM. The issue for me is that there's too much variance despite consistent gameplay.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I will very often only get 1 DoF all game, even when playing in a passive peaceful style, and then other games I will get more. The number of DoFs I can get feels unrelated to my actions as a player; it depends a whole lot on luck. The idea that building a particular Wonder means I can't get research agreements? That stinks.
I agree with this. The ability to get a DoF is still too opaque and hard for the human to manipulate for this to be so central to the game. The ideal solution would be making diplomacy more transparent (as I was saying since the earliest pre-release info we got about diplomacy and how they were hiding modifiers), but failing that I might revert to a vanilla-style RA system.
I agree with this. The ability to get a DoF is still too opaque and hard for the human to manipulate for this to be so central to the game. The ideal solution would be making diplomacy more transparent (as I was saying since the earliest pre-release info we got about diplomacy and how they were hiding modifiers), but failing that I might revert to a vanilla-style RA system.
Perhaps RA's could give diminishing return based on their number? It's straightforward enough what you have to do to be friends with someone, it's a problem if you'd like to do the balancing act to have several active DoFs. Even with the requirements of that act fully transparent, odds are it will become very artificially game-y to do it just right. For example how to be not too much friends with neither side of a conflict to be able to have a DoF with both.
So, for example, you'd gain full beakers from your biggest DoF, half the beakers from the second DoF, third of the beakers from the third DoF, etc. And probably one should somewhat increase the base percentage of sum of beakers then. That'd balance the difference between those with many and few (friendly) neighbours in the early game, as well as making RA's easier to balance between games with varying numbers of rival civs (smaller and bigger maps).
Also, the RA should really be costing gold to trade for beakers, to keep the spirit and balance of how it's done in vanilla. Suppose this will come with the core access, and separating RA from DoF, Thal mentioned earlier?
So, for example, you'd gain full beakers from your biggest DoF, half the beakers from the second DoF, third of the beakers from the third DoF, etc. And probably one should somewhat increase the base percentage of sum of beakers then. That'd balance the difference between those with many and few (friendly) neighbours in the early game, as well as making RA's easier to balance between games with varying numbers of rival civs (smaller and bigger maps).
Also, the RA should really be costing gold to trade for beakers, to keep the spirit and balance of how it's done in vanilla. Suppose this will come with the core access, and separating RA from DoF, Thal mentioned earlier?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
There's a lot of good ideas floating around in this thread. To try and focus on some concrete analysis, what specific replacement solution would you suggest, and how does it meet these goals? I've seen concepts that meet one or two goals, but all four are important. 
- Prevent runaway games.
- The aims of the three playstyles are met.
- Build effects into existing mechanisms.
- Give Declarations of Friendship a tangible benefit.
Ahriman
Tyrant
For requirements, I would add some mix of:
a) Mechanic is transparent
b) Human player is able to achieve the research benefit by acting in a particular way if they want to
c) Mechanic has a reasonable degree of predictability.
d) Particular social policy trees and wonders do not become overly powerful or no-brainers.
a) Mechanic is transparent
b) Human player is able to achieve the research benefit by acting in a particular way if they want to
c) Mechanic has a reasonable degree of predictability.
d) Particular social policy trees and wonders do not become overly powerful or no-brainers.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I agree with those too. What I'm trying to say is, yes, the current solution is imperfect... but it's the best I've come up with so far. What would be ways to adapt other suggestions so we can achieve the goals?
It reminds me of that Churchill quote:
It reminds me of that Churchill quote:
Ahriman
Tyrant
Understood, I don't have a great solution here either.
I think in general that linking research to the DoF has promise in the long-term, but that the main problem is the lack of transparency in how the diplomacy system works and how the DoF works.
So my preferred compromise solution would be:
a) Remove the synergy with Porcelain Tower, and find some other effect for that wonder. Free tech + some science or scientist GPP yields doesn't seem unreasonable.
b) Remove the synergy with Rationalism unlock, and find a better ability there. A long golden age is one possibility, a free great scientist isn't so strong by that point, or something else.
c) Modestly reduce the science bonus, or have it also have a gold cost (eg: cancel out the open borders trade bonus). Am I correct that at the moment the bonus is 5% of the combined total of the two players to each player? So if A and B generate AS and BS science per turn, and they get a DoF, each gets a bonus of (0.05)(AS+BS), and that Rationalism and Porcelain tower increase the multiplier by 0.025 each?
d) In the long-term, when DoF logic can be made more transparent to the player, increase the science bonus again.
I think in general that linking research to the DoF has promise in the long-term, but that the main problem is the lack of transparency in how the diplomacy system works and how the DoF works.
So my preferred compromise solution would be:
a) Remove the synergy with Porcelain Tower, and find some other effect for that wonder. Free tech + some science or scientist GPP yields doesn't seem unreasonable.
b) Remove the synergy with Rationalism unlock, and find a better ability there. A long golden age is one possibility, a free great scientist isn't so strong by that point, or something else.
c) Modestly reduce the science bonus, or have it also have a gold cost (eg: cancel out the open borders trade bonus). Am I correct that at the moment the bonus is 5% of the combined total of the two players to each player? So if A and B generate AS and BS science per turn, and they get a DoF, each gets a bonus of (0.05)(AS+BS), and that Rationalism and Porcelain tower increase the multiplier by 0.025 each?
d) In the long-term, when DoF logic can be made more transparent to the player, increase the science bonus again.
How about this:
DoF gives much bigger beaker bonus than currently, using the same mechanism, but only works if you're researching a tech your friend already has. The side getting extra beakers will pay (some amount of) gold per beaker to the side "providing the info".
+ It'd prevent anyone getting ahead in tech by RA's, and would give clear advantage to the underdog.
+ If the behind in tech partner doesn't have the gold, gold losses automatically gets deducted from beakers, so no need for extra mechanism there. (And RA beakers might cost less gold per beaker than loosing beakers due to loss of gold per turn)
+ Certainly gives a DoF a benefit, and works within current RA formula, also incorporates gold for science idea of vanilla research pacts.
+/- Sorta mixes up the playstyles. The military civ then stands to gain most from DoFs, for supposedly having least tech, but is not the friendly one. The science-heavy civs stand to gain gold in return for eroding their tech edge, which is a mixed blessing. The gold could potentially be used for diplo victory, so makes science, and benevolently spreading the knowledge, potentially useful when shooting for diplo victory. Might also give heavier a diplomatic bonus for providing knowledge to a friend than current DoF.
- Might be difficult for the AI to figure out just how much each tech really costs to get given his DoFs. Or for AI's ahead in tech to realize the cost of pumping up their rivals for giving a DoF (AI rarely seems to need gold much).
DoF gives much bigger beaker bonus than currently, using the same mechanism, but only works if you're researching a tech your friend already has. The side getting extra beakers will pay (some amount of) gold per beaker to the side "providing the info".
+ It'd prevent anyone getting ahead in tech by RA's, and would give clear advantage to the underdog.
+ If the behind in tech partner doesn't have the gold, gold losses automatically gets deducted from beakers, so no need for extra mechanism there. (And RA beakers might cost less gold per beaker than loosing beakers due to loss of gold per turn)
+ Certainly gives a DoF a benefit, and works within current RA formula, also incorporates gold for science idea of vanilla research pacts.
+/- Sorta mixes up the playstyles. The military civ then stands to gain most from DoFs, for supposedly having least tech, but is not the friendly one. The science-heavy civs stand to gain gold in return for eroding their tech edge, which is a mixed blessing. The gold could potentially be used for diplo victory, so makes science, and benevolently spreading the knowledge, potentially useful when shooting for diplo victory. Might also give heavier a diplomatic bonus for providing knowledge to a friend than current DoF.
- Might be difficult for the AI to figure out just how much each tech really costs to get given his DoFs. Or for AI's ahead in tech to realize the cost of pumping up their rivals for giving a DoF (AI rarely seems to need gold much).
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
The combination of A and B would revert things back to v7.5. I liked the balance of the game in that version, so no complaints here.
Yes, C is how the bonus works. It usually averages 8-20%
per agreement.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I think this is too much, particularly when some players are sometimes able to get 3+ DoFs.
I'd remove the Porcelain Tower and Rationalism boosts, and then drop the modifier to 4%, and see how that plays. An 8% bonus is still very significant when it costs you nothing in terms of resources.
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
It costs you diplomatic relations with another civ, because of denouncements.
