• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Joining the Voting Record Club (Session #7)

L. Vern

Warlord
Joined
Sep 5, 2022
Messages
127
Location
Ontario, Canada
All the cool kids are doing one these days so figured I'd share my thoughts as well

(7-01) Make Villages Buildable on Marsh
Nay. Villages are fine as-is and I like consistency with the other basic improvements.

(7-02) Rename Tyranny to Co-Prosperity Sphere
Yea. Anyone familiar with Japanese colonialism in ww2 knows how perfect the name is for what the tenet does lol. Great euphenism as a standalone too.

(7-03) Rename Trade Organization to Containment
Yea. More accurate to what it does, good reference.

(7-04) Autocracy Commerce Raiders Rework
Yea. More thematic, fits the tree better. Nothing to not like here.

(7-05) Aluminum Tech Requirements
Yea. I like consistency in having resources revealed slightly earlier than they can be used.

(7-06) Oil and Oil Well Tech Requirement Proposals
Yea (7-06a). I like consistency in having resources revealed slightly earlier than they can be used.

(7-07) Polynesian Maori Warrior Proposals
Yea to (7-07a). Maori Warrior could use a buff. Don't really like scout UUs,and by extension the alternative. They're in kind of an awkard spot where they will get thrashed by contemporary melee and ranged line contemporaries so they're difficult to use in larger numbers as an actual combat formation, and in smaller numbers are certainly useful but only marginally moreso than the base recon line units.

(7-08) Polynesian UA & UI (Moai) Proposals
Yea to (7-08b). PAD makes a very strong argument in his rationale so I'm not going to repeat it here, but I particularly agree with the observation that prod is way better than food on coastal cities, should help them out a fair bit.

(7-09 & 7-10) Shoshone and Huns Proposals
Nay to all. I don't like the idea of giving Shoshone more land grabbing tools, they take up annoyingly large swathes of land as it is. Some of the Huns changes seem fine but don't think I can vote for those without the other changes bundled with them so just going to be a no from me.

(7-11) Hospital and Medical Lab Rework Proposals
Yea to (7-11a). Love the changes to hospital, feels much more thematic as a support building for specialists and makes it much more interesting gameplay-wise too. Might make the Freedom "universal healthcare" or whatever policy that gives all the hospitals too good though, we'll see. The non-abusable medical lab seems like a no brainer.

(7-12) Change Connectivity of the Tradition Policy Tree
Yea. Tradition buff is not unwarranted, and doing it in such a way that provides more optionality is great game design.

(7-13) CS Quest "Conduct Intelligence Ops" Restricted to 1 [Spy Update 1]
Yea. There's enough things to micro at that point in the game.

(7-14) Spy XP & Leveling Proposals
Yea to (7-14a). Big fan of streamlining the system in this way, and I thought the England and Bletchley Park changes were fine and didn't require keeping levels in the game.

(7-15) Pilfer Religious Relics Mission Proposals
Yea to (7-15a). I've literally never used this before because it looks so bad on paper. Might be decent now.

(7-16) Kidnap Specialists Mission Proposals
Yea to (7-16) and (7-16a). Agree that cost should be reduced but don't care about the capital requirement, voting OK with either.

(7-17 & 7-18) Spy Passive Bonus Proposal & Great Leap Forward Proposals
Yea to both (7-17) and (7-18a). I like consistency and (18a) is a clean update of the tenet to the new spy system.

(7-19 & 7-20) Constabulary and Police Station Proposals (& Counterspy Buff)
Yea to both (7-19) and (7-20). Security building line is kinda bad right now, I usually only build it in capital when ahead LOL. Counterspy changes look like a positive direction overall also.

(7-21) Sabotage City Production Mission Redesign Proposals
Yea to both. Agreed that the sabotage mission is a bit weak, and I like both the proposals.

(7-22) Allow Non-Recon Units to Pick Up Ancient Ruins
Yea. I proposed, not going to repeat rationale here.

(7-23) Council of Elders Rebalance
Nay. It's fine that some perks are stronger or weaker at different points of the game or in different situations, don't see much point in changing choices so that they're all decent in a multide of situations.

(7-24) Supply Cap Penalty Rework
Nay. While there is a realism factor, gameplay wise this sounds awful. Losing a game in a matter of several turns from negative feedback loops sounds unfun and way too punishing considering the average game length.

(7-25) Carthage Rework Proposals
Yea to both. I think getting a cargo ship on coastal settle sounds really fun and is probably the most interesting sounding change, but I'm ok with either passing. The original proposal was very well thought out and motivated and a positive direction for the game imo.

(7-26 & 7-27) Tradition & Fealty Scaler Proposals + Fealty Policy Rework Proposals
Yea to (7-26). I think the biggest standout issues addressed in these proposals is Tradition food - early on it's weak, and later on I feel like you often have enough pop to work all your specialists anyway. Changing to flat food is a good way to increase early game power a bit. The other proposals were fine, not going to address each one individually but overall I didn't see an argument strong enough to move from the status quo.

(7-28) God of the Sea: Remove +2 Food from Coast
Nay. Don't think the belief is too strong in general, I end up taking it quite infrequently. Problem is, many other choices allow you to instantly buff many existing improvements, while getting to fishing boats and defending them is a far larger and longer investment. The extra food to get your early coastal settles going is one of the main draws for me, I doubt I'd pick it if this part were removed.

(7-29) Porcelain Tower Changeup
Yea. It's pretty good overall, and having an interaction with a game option that is disabled by default is just strange.

(7-30 & 7-31) Summer Palace Buff & Diplomats Ignore Open Borders
Nay to both. I don't like the summer palace buff because it further homogenizes bonuses and reduces city uniqueness and specialization. I don't like the diplomat changes because I consider counterplay to diplo unit spam to be a good thing.

(7-32) Musketman -1 CS
Yea. They're super good as they are now, though doubtless will still be extremely powerful while perhaps requiring a bit more thought to their protection and positioning.

(7-33) Skirmisher & War Chariot RCS Proposals
Yea to (7-33) Skirmisher +1 RCS. I like consistency in unit upgrades, and skirmishers feel a bit weak in most situations. Undoubedtly the ranged mounted line is very good at later points in the game once road networks are set up, but due to lack of support at that point in the game I very rarely build them.

(7-34) Town Gains Culture to Mirror the Village
Yea. I love consistency.

(7-35) Merchant Specialist Buff Proposals
Yea to all. I'm ok with any of the three options being implemented. I often find myself in a gold crunch in the middle to late game, so more gpt is always welcome. Though I think most of the power of merchant specialists is in their ability to generate great merchants and their GPTI/Trade mission so I doubt any of these changes will move the needle much, relatively speaking.

(7-36) Promise Not to Attack Applies to Both Parties (Troops Near Border)
Yea. Would love to see this mechanic reworked into a more of a nonagression pact as opposed to what we have now, a forced choice between war and unilateral restrictions for the receiver.

(7-37) Remove Faith -> Production Conversion from the Order Building
Yea. Agreed with the rationale that it does too much, and this particular effect overlaps too much with what you normally need a great person to do.

(7-38 & 7-39) Authority Rework Proposals
Yea to (7-38) Weaken Barb Camp Culture/Remove +1 Prod. It's a reasonable toning down of power without changing the identity of the tree. I dislike reducing culture on kills by half on the opener because it will lead to many situations where getting policies will take forever. While the changes from barracks to city strength requirement is fine, I am very strongly against the re-arrangement of the RHS. Being able to choose when you need to start getting more science and having that tradeoff with expansionism is what makes the tree very interesting for me.

(7-40) Progress Rework Proposals
Yea to (7-40a) + Nay. I don't like taking away production from progress cities, it's kind of the identity of the tree to build up infrastructure in all your cities. 7-40a is fine, taking off power in non-unique areas, but I'd be fine with none of these passing. I think the only broken thing about progress is the policy that gives -6 unhappiness in all cities, lets you ignore the empire size modifier for like 10 cities and often when I pick it I go from like 40 :c5happy: / 40 :c5unhappy: to 45 :c5happy: / 15 :c5unhappy: lol.

(7-41 & 7-42) Japanese Dojo Buff Proposals
Yea to implementing both (7-41) and (7-42a). Japan could def use some love, and both these suggestions make sense from a thematic and gameplay perspective.

(7-43) Remove Notification when a City Starts WLTKD
Yea. Less clutter is good, agreed this info isn't particularly actionable or useful.

(7-44) Remove Notification When a Trade Route from Another Player is Plundered
Nay. Info is often useful, alerting you to threats in an area such as barbs or hostile city states. Though I wouldn't mind an option turn it off if its plundered by an entity you yourself are not at war with.

(7-45 & 7-46) Mongolian Khan & Ordo Proposals
Yea to (7-45a). Giving the Khan the medic promos seems far preferrable to having it stack with the promo, city level healing in neutral territory seems a bit too strong. Ordo movement refresh is a hard no from me. Its utility surpasses even railroad and airports at times, and will largely invalidate the necessity of having things like bridges or combat road networks.
(7-47) War Weariness and War Score Affected by Damage on Cities
Yea. Much cleaner and more general change than the bomber proposals, and makes a lot of sense too. I've thought for a while its strange how sieges don't directly contribute to these scores.

(7-48) Songhai Nerf Proposals
Yea to (7-48). Removing triple barb camp bonuses is straightforward and gets the job done, is probably the most egregious random bonus they get. If river city connection gets passed as well its another relative nerf, don't think anything else is necessary.

(7-49) All Civs Gain City Connections Along Rivers
Yea. Love this mechanic, makes for fun and rewarding civ planning and expansion, and it's not like using rivers for transport was a particularly unique idea.

(7-50) Industrial City Connections
Yea. Cleans up a lot of inconsistencies and unintuitive interactions, love this set of changes overall.

(7-51) Change Expiry Conditions for Gift Unit Quest
Yea. No-brainer, was probably an oversight in the original implementation.

(7-52) Adjusting Some City-State Influence Rewards
Nay. I like the sentiment overall but these changes are too heavy-handed. Changing the majority of quests so that you lose the influence from them in like 3 turns is not a go.

(7-53) Landmarks in City-State Lands Grant Resting Influence Proposals
Yea to (7-53a). Changes are a great direction, I like the version with resting influence scaling with era more though.

(7-54) Remove CS Resting Influence Bonuses if War is Declared / City Captured
Yea. It makes sense, and don't see any reason not to.

(7-55 & 7-56) AI Difficulty Bonus Change Proposals
Yea to (7-56) + implementing both (7-55a) and (7-56). The food on city founding is the really ridiculous part IMO, leaves no window of opportunity of assaulting a weak city and makes forward settles by AI way too strong. I'm ok with 7-55a being implemented as well: I don't mind if the gold from handicap bonuses is removed, though this is more of a difficulty slider issue than an unfun handicap bonus interaction issue.

(7-57) Rename Manhattan Project to Nuclear Weapons Program
Nay. The name is iconic for the franchise and has no need to be changed.

(7-58) Rename East India Company to Chartered Company
Nay. It adds flavor and works fine, no need to be changed.

(7-59 & 7-60) Spy Consecutive Election Rigging Proposals
Yea to (7-59a). Looks like a good middle ground. Don't like the decol proposal, decol is powerful and annoying enough as it is and I'm against removing options of dealing with it without adding other options of mitigating its effects or reworking it entirely.

(7-61) Complete the "Complete Kills" Functionality
Abstain. Never used the option; no opninion.

(7-62) Ottomans Nerf
Nay. For fun reasons: I love getting that huge capital growth and planning around the science influxes, kind of like the old RAs. Do not want it dampened :p

(7-63) Sea Beggar Prerequisite Tech Change
Yea. Unit is already insanely good compared to its replacement. If it comes earlier it should be the same combat power level, maybe some utility perks at most.

(7-64) New Coastal Artillery Promotion for Cannon and Later Siege Units
Yea. Optionality and being rewarded for situational decision making is a good thing. Also, carpets of melee ships are arguably too beefy, having more options to deal with that is great.

(7-65) Add Tourism to France's Yield Per Unit Scaler
Yea. Adding more options for victory types is nice for an already underperforming civ. I don't see too much concern with the potentially large yield numbers, even if they do get to a 100+ :tourism: /turn bonus at that point in the game it will still be dwarfed by other contributions.

(7-66) Make Forts Pillageable and the Time to Repair Improvements Stop Scaling With Game Speed
Yea. I like consistency.

(7-67) Tourism Modifier Cap Change
Yea. Feels like this was an oversight in the original implementation, see no reason for it not to be this way.

(7-68) Change AI Peace Treaty Behavior - Consistent to All Players in the Same Team
Abstain. Never played team games, no opinion.

(7-69) Diplomatic Buildings - Count CS you Conquer as Allies for Bonuses
Yea. Slight preference for including. I can see an argument for why its illogical to but ultimately I can buy them being just less autonomous city states and I think it would make the game more fun lol

(7-70) Vassal Unit Levy Proposals
Yea to (7-70a). Vassal levy was super janky, an update to it is a no-brainer. I liked 70a slightly more than 70 because it makes more sense with restrictions like excluding units Vassals cant make.

(7-71) Remove Unit Upgrade Discount and Some Building Science from Military-Industrial Complex
Yea. Gold upgrading costs should be a major consideration at all points of the game, trivializing that challenge is not a great direction for the game imo.

(7-72) Purchase Cost Reduction Rework Proposals
Nay + (7-72b). Option b is the only one I'd be fine with as standardization and consistency is a good direction. None of these seem to have too much of an impact in most cases so I don't mind if none get passed either.

(7-73) "To the Glory of God" Belief Buff
Nay. Its raw yields and flexibility already make it a great choice.

(7-74) Spain Tweaks... Again
Yea. Agreed with the likely causes for deficiency and remedies. Really happy to see that the data exploration I've been doing is conducive to helping balance the game from a position of increased insight!

(7-75) Giant Death Robots Standalone, Limited to 2 & Cost More
Nay. They're already capped by uranium requirement, and even then I don't think they're that good. Going from modern armor -> GDR is less of a percentage increase in CS from tank -> modern armor, and in practice I regularly come off worse with GDRs attacking a defending modern armor, they certainly are not "build one and roll through absolutely everything" powerful.

(7-76 & 7-77) Mayan Kuna & Atlatlist Proposals
Yea to (7-76) + Yea to implementing both (7-76) and (7-77). I'm ok with both of these changes. The science reduction is the important one imo, I feel like Maya is one of the most common runaway civs where they get a stupid amount of science early and are able to build every single wonder from lack of competition and snowball further, and even when they aren't having to almost guaranteed fight 1-2 unit tiers down is rough. Atlatlist nerf is fine, I love consistency.

(7-78) Standardize City Tile Yields
Yea. I like making settling on resources not as much of a waste when you have to do it, and I love simplification and standardization.

(7-79) Make Special Forces Cheaper
Yea. I probably still won't build any because they die from anything even looking at them funny at that point in the game but can't vote against any effort to make them usable.

(7-80) Bomb Rack, Aerial Torpedo Buffs
Yea. Considering the lack of general +CS buffs for aircraft I wouldn't even mind seeing this go up to 50.

(7-81) Hand-Axe Buff (+1 CS and +1 RCS)
Nay. Barbs as a whole are in a perfectly adequate spot strength-wise, don't see the need for a change like this.

(7-82) Fill In Scouting Promotions with Water Equivalents
Nay. I think +2 vision is already a bit too much value, but also water exploration and scouting is the role of ships and explorers; I don't like diminishing their identity.

(7-83) Korea Nerf
Nay. I've played them a couple times since congress 4 changes and they did not feel particularly overpowered, don't think a nerf is warranted. I doubt this change would move the needle much anyway, but erring on the side of keeping the status quo here.

(7-84) Lebensraum Rework
Yea. Keeping land after razing is very thematically appropriate, and the new placement rules are a very clean way of retaining a lot of aspects of the old versions power while curbing the GG stockpiling abuse cases.

(7-85) Alert When AI's Non-Expansion Agreement Has Expired
Yea. Don't see any reason not to, seems like a good QoL change.

(7-86) God of the Sun Tweak Proposals
Yea to (7-86a). If you're in a situation where you're considering taking god of the sun, you already have enough food. Changing +3 :c5food: to +1:c5food:/+1:c5faith:/+1:c5science: makes it far more attractive without superflous yields. Additionally, this makes it more in line with how other resource pantheons are defined (as you may know, I love consistency)

(7-87) Rename Oxford University Proposals
Nay. It adds flavor and works fine, no need to be changed.

(7-88) New Supermajority Vote Threshold
2/3 majority. A reasonable threshold used by many world governments
 
Ordo movement refresh is a hard no from me. Its utility surpasses even railroad and airports at times, and will largely invalidate the necessity of having things like bridges or combat road networks.
It's already a thing, for humans only. You just have to click MANY times to refresh moves once.
and it's not like using rivers for transport was a particularly unique idea.
The thing is that you can hop between rivers with the current implementation...
Option b is the only one I'd be fine with as standardization and consistency is a good direction.
It's the one that's the most inconsistent though.
 
Last edited:
The thing is that you can hop between rivers with the current implementation...
Yea, I saw your post earlier with the river system and basins and obviously it would be way cooler if it worked that way but still fun in its current form

It's the one that's the most inconsistent though
At least it tries to curb the mess of additive and multiplicative modifiers mix which are never intuitive. imo much easier to go from there to something that's logical but I'm not super sold on that particular implementation, as mentioned I'm fine with none of these passing

It's already a thing, for humans only. You just have to click MANY times to refresh moves once.
Wait, what? You can get the +1 ordo movement more than once per turn? Never thought to use it that way, repeatedly moving onto and off an ordo with a road to keep filling up move points... Seems like a bug/exploit LOL
 
Wait, what? You can get the +1 ordo movement more than once per turn? Never thought to use it that way, repeatedly moving onto and off an ordo with a road to keep filling up move points... Seems like a bug/exploit LOL
Yup.
 
Wait, what? You can get the +1 ordo movement more than once per turn? Never thought to use it that way, repeatedly moving onto and off an ordo with a road to keep filling up move points... Seems like a bug/exploit LOL
Personally voted against. Giving back full movement is not a fix, it is going in the way of the exploit. It's too late for counterproposal, but if anything, I'd rather allow units to benefit from it only once per turn instead.
 
I'd rather allow units to benefit from it only once per turn instead
Obviously it would be ideal if each unit could only benefit from walking over each separate ordo 1 time, so they could still benefit from the “railgun”, but not just go back and forth on the same ordo to charge up. That would take a lot of memory to check what ordo has given which unit a bonus in that turn already tho.

If it were just “a unit can only get +1 movement from any Ordo in a turn that would only add a bit of new memory consumption, but no more railgun :(

Maybe that’s what we end up having to do though.
 
Would it be possible thought promotion ? A promotion is added when you walk through the Ordo, preventing you from benefiting from any this turn, with the added benefit that as a player, you have an indication of if you already benefited this turn.
 
Top Bottom