• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Great General/Admiral buffing City Strength

Should a GG/GA garrisoned in a City boost City defense?

  • No, keep it as it is now.

    Votes: 10 22.7%
  • Yes, restore the previous functionality (small boost to City Strength).

    Votes: 30 68.2%
  • Yes and it should be a big boost to City Strength.

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • Yes, but in a different way (please elaborate below).

    Votes: 3 6.8%

  • Total voters
    44
  • Poll closed .
Just noting that those small differences are magnified on cities because of the amount of hp involved. For unit combat, such a difference might involve a few extra attacks. For a city, it could be 5-6.
Which is why I included the example with settling on a hill and garrison differences; the GG, even with the upper value I gave of +5 City Strength, is the difference between a Spearman and Swordsman garrison in an un-walled City.
Furthermore, there are going to be more units than Cities to fight in a war, which means the lower overall HP per entity for units is simply "compensated" by having more "HP entities".
 
This really is such a small change, and so narrow that I don't want it to exist. I'm having a hard time convincing people to try this game with all the secret ins and outs that already exist in the game. Adding this will add even more complexity for no added engagement.
 
Adding this will add even more complexity for no added engagement.
Nothing is being added. This feature was a standard part of VP for years (it's a vanilla mechanism, after all) until about 2 months ago, when it was (potentially inadvertently) removed without that removal being discussed or even mentioned anywhere; when I noticed it for the first time I thought it was a bug, as did the person filing the Github issue about it. I am simply arguing for retaining that feature and the clear and absolute majority agrees with me in that, according to the poll.

So far, the "opposition" has given contradictory arguments ("it's too big of a boost and thus creates problems for the AI" vs. "it's such a small change it isn't even worth implementing"), unrelated issues ("I'm having a hard time convincing people to try this game with all the secret ins and outs that already exist in the game" -> if people are already confused about the features in this mod, why introduce yet another change to it that people will have to learn as well, as vanilla has the boost and most people coming to VP come from vanilla) and personal feelings ("This really is such a small change, and so narrow that I don't want it to exist.").
I think what's being exhibited here is the frustration of a small group of contributors (what one might call "the elite", if one was inclined to draw parallels to *something else* :mischief: ) being frustrated by the "unwashed masses", i.e. the majority who use this mod, not voting the way they like and thus trying desperately to find reasons to discredit the motion and stop Brexit (oh wait, I may have jumped over into something else now :lol: ).
 
I'm trying to get my wife and her friend started on this game and she's skipping vanilla and going straight to VP. Some things are just really inaccessible, and I realize just how confusing and frustrating they can be for a first time player:
She didn't understand why the ability to settle cities had to be unlocked (and why the icon for making cities is a dude giving a boy a piggyback)
She played 20 hours before she found out what emissaries did
She was very confused about why the tech to make a resource visible didn't also unlock the ability to improve that resource.
It took her 10 hours to notice that the :c5strength:city strength gets higher when you put military units in it.

There's just a lot of ins and outs to the game that can make it prickly for a new player. Big difference, small difference, I'm not going to comment on the size of the bonus, I just think it's added complexity without a lot of added fun.
 
I can appreciate that specific case, but I think you'd agree that the clear majority of people come to VP from vanilla and they are used to that feature. I'm also not sure that it really increases complexity by that much...I mean if your City is under siege you'll want to defend it, usually, so your army will be there, including your GG, if you have one, and the City is the safest place for him up to a point, so he would just be doing something else besides boosting the CS of surrounding units without the player having to do anything; if you beat the attacker back your city doesn't need the extra CS anymore so the fact that the GG follows the army out of the city to the counterattack isn't a drawback with this mechanism and if the city is surrounded enough that it is being seriously attacked you can't place your GG anywhere else where he'd be safe, anyway, so he'd be in the City...it seems to me that the mechanism very naturally follows what already happens without it and simply gives you that extra edge in defense.

It also gives GGs something to do aside from boosting CS for units when you're keeping one around (as opposed to planting him), which makes it seem as less of a waste of maintenance.
 
When I think about it this is a feature that I would have to put in the 'fun' category. It adds a certain nuance that this game severely lacks and can feel oddly satisfying. I've also relied on it enough to know that it is a gimmick against the AI, and overall makes certain city placements extremely hard to counter. A little sad to see it go because it's one less activity in an already limited tactical combat. It's satisfying for all the wrong reasons. It's also hard to balance. Great Generals themselves are hard to counter and now you have to ask yourself whether or not to balance siege weapons under the assumption they have one.

Removing it hurts their usability, but I also think regardless of what military-orienated bonus they have you'll struggle justifying ever needing more then a couple of these. I personally never had more then 3, usually have 2. The rest are chokepoint/supply/science feed.

If I'm in favor of a replacement it would probably be production towards units, if only to promote unit production in cities on the frontlines.
Of course this is an even more obscure bonus and would have to be stated in a tool-tip somewhere, and creates a big incentive of just leaving one in your capital/favored military production city.
Production cost would probably have to be raised slightly to compensate.
 
So far, the "opposition" has given contradictory arguments...

I think what's being exhibited here is the frustration of a small group of contributors (what one might call "the elite", if one was inclined to draw parallels to *something else* :mischief: ) being frustrated by the "unwashed masses", i.e. the majority who use this mod, not voting the way they like and thus trying desperately to find reasons to discredit the motion and stop Brexit (oh wait, I may have jumped over into something else now :lol: ).

While I agree with you on restoring the GG city strength boost, I don't think there's any need to make the discussion adversarial or make such comparisons to touchy political issues.

I'm sure @pineappledan and others are expressing sincere feelings in an attempt to improve the mod for everyone, far from having hostility towards "the unwashed masses". I feel such accusatory statements are unhelpful to the dialogue and discourage people to voice their opinions.
 
Last edited:
I feel such statements are unhelpful to the dialogue and discourage people to voice their opinions.
I had hoped that the "mischievous" smiley, the "lol" smiley as well as the obviously overdrawn comparison would have hinted at the humorous element of that part of my comment...I made it because it's weird that most posts in this thread (save mine) are against, while there is a large amount of votes for the proposition, which makes it seem like a small but very vocal minority fighting against a silent majority. The parallels to be drawn are obvious, but, as can't be stated enough in general these days, correlation != causation, which is why I think it's funny to draw the comparison.

That said, I don't think my comment was overly offensive and I don't appreciate being tone-policed for such small things.
 
While I agree with you on restoring the GG city strength boost, I don't think there's any need to make the discussion adversarial or make such comparisons to touchy political issues.

I'm sure @pineappledan and others are expressing sincere feelings in an attempt to improve the mod for everyone, far from having hostility towards "the unwashed masses". I feel such accusatory statements are unhelpful to the dialogue and discourage people to voice their opinions.

I hope I haven't offended you Recursive and that is was only an unconscious decision on your part to steer this in an off-topic direction for a comment made earlier today that even pineapppledan didn't seem to pick up on.

For all the accusation I've seen thrown around for the very thing you're pointing out your timing and shift of opinion in your very first statement are impeccable.
 
I hope I haven't offended you Recursive and that is was only an unconscious decision on your part to steer this in an off-topic direction for a comment made earlier today that even pineapppledan didn't seem to pick up on.
My silence is not agreement. Some things don’t merit a response. I had hoped that, by not responding I would help direct the conversation away from baseless accusations. But I'm being spoken for now, so I have to speak up.

The tone-policing isn’t welcome, but neither is the accusation that I’m some sort of patrician, no matter how many layers of irony are used.
 
Last edited:
I had hoped that the "mischievous" smiley, the "lol" smiley as well as the obviously overdrawn comparison would have hinted at the humorous element of that part of my comment...I made it because it's weird that most posts in this thread (save mine) are against, while there is a large amount of votes for the proposition, which makes it seem like a small but very vocal minority fighting against a silent majority. The parallels to be drawn are obvious, but, as can't be stated enough in general these days, correlation != causation, which is why I think it's funny to draw the comparison.

That said, I don't think my comment was overly offensive and I don't appreciate being tone-policed for such small things.

Ah well, Poe's Law. I misinterpreted your intention in regards to the comparison.

I feel the "the opposition is trying desperately" line was not overly clear in its intention (it may be that it's a UK soundbite, and being Canadian, I'm not well-versed in UK politics). Sarcasm/humor is sometimes difficult to convey over text.

It seems there was a miscommunication, and I apologize if I'm at fault there. My intention was not to tone police you; I just want to make sure everyone here feels comfortable having discussions here without it becoming adversarial, and I understand this forum has sometimes had problems with that, so I'm somewhat sensitive to it.

I hope I haven't offended you Recursive and that is was only an unconscious decision on your part to steer this in an off-topic direction for a comment made earlier today that even pineapppledan didn't seem to pick up on.

For all the accusation I've seen thrown around for the very thing you're pointing out your timing and shift of opinion in your very first statement are impeccable.

I don't understand what you're saying here, could you please clarify?
 
I made it because it's weird that most posts in this thread (save mine) are against, while there is a large amount of votes for the proposition
I think it makes sense. Your original post was already arguing for "Yes" and had the main reasons for adding it back. If you agree, there's not much else to be said or reason to comment. Whereas if you disagree you'll have to say your reasons why.
 
I think it makes sense. Your original post was already arguing for "Yes" and had the main reasons for adding it back. If you agree, there's not much else to be said or reason to comment. Whereas if you disagree you'll have to say your reasons why.
Good point; I hadn't thought of it this way.
 
I don't understand what you're saying here, could you please clarify?

I think it's pretty clear what I am saying, though maybe impeccable was not the right choice of word.
Essentially I am saying that it's possible you are committing the same behavior, and that inserting yourself in the role of diplomat was just a clever cover. Don't these sorts of discussions usually take place between moderators and the offender in private?

Nothing says steer clear then topics such as this, and it's a topic I've seen frequently scattered throughout this forum in the last year or two. I'm only worried about it because you guys seem to be.
 
I think it's pretty clear what I am saying, though maybe impeccable was not the right choice of word.
Essentially I am saying that it's possible you are committing the same behavior, and that inserting yourself in the role of diplomat was just a clever cover.

Nothing says steer clear then topics such as this, and it's a topic I've seen frequently scattered throughout this forum in the last year or two. I'm only worried about it because you guys seem to be.

My silver-tongued diplomats' machinations in the World Congress will soon see you on your knees, mortal! Global Hegemony shall be mine!

In all seriousness, while my intervention may have been in error, I was not meaning to be malicious or offensive. I think there's been a miscommunication, I've stated this and I apologized for misconstruing the situation.

My intention was not to "play the role of diplomat as a cover", that was my natural reaction. I'm not one for hidden agendas...well, disregarding the WAR and DECEPTIVE weight I've added to the diplomacy AI. :)

However, in regards to your statement that concerns about divisive rhetoric are overblown, I disagree with you on this. Gazebo has stated he receives messages from a lot of people who are too intimidated to participate in the discussion here because of it.
 
This really is such a small change, and so narrow that I don't want it to exist. I'm having a hard time convincing people to try this game with all the secret ins and outs that already exist in the game. Adding this will add even more complexity for no added engagement.
Just gonna throw this out there, but one weird abstraction that I remember is that a unit garrisoned in a city benefits from the GG aura but the city does not. The fact that GG aura is not a blanket boost for all military capability is in itself another un-obvious feature.

What if cities were included in the GG aura like units currently are?
I think this would give the QoL that people desire while also being less of a "secret in and out" detail
 
Just gonna throw this out there, but one weird abstraction that I remember is that a unit garrisoned in a city benefits from the GG aura but the city does not. The fact that GG aura is not a blanket boost for all military capability is in itself another un-obvious feature.

What if cities were included in the GG aura like units currently are?
I think this would give the QoL that people desire while also being less of a "secret in and out" detail

This would give another reason to build forts within your territory; you'd be able to place them at strategic points where Great Generals (along with a fortified unit) could defend your units and protect your nearby city at the same time.

However, it'd also make it possible to boost two or more cities with only one GG/GA, which is a potential issue.
 
What if cities were included in the GG aura like units currently are?
I think this would give the QoL that people desire while also being less of a "secret in and out" detail
If possible to code, I would say this makes a lot of sense, is easier to understand for humans and likely more AI friendly: count me in!
 
She didn't understand why the ability to settle cities had to be unlocked (and why the icon for making cities is a dude giving a boy a piggyback)
She played 20 hours before she found out what emissaries did
She was very confused about why the tech to make a resource visible didn't also unlock the ability to improve that resource.
It took her 10 hours to notice that the :c5strength:city strength gets higher when you put military units in it.

Your wife grasped some mechanics quicker than me, and I'm here still. :king:

Also edit: yay WE're winning the poll.
 
Top Bottom