(LOCKED) Going for Gold: World Congress Resolutions

Is this item in a reasonable state of balance?


  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
10,598
Going for Gold: These threads are designed to lock down elements of the mod for the gold release. In other words, if approved, no further changes are expected for this item.

This thread will debate the various resolutions of the World Congress

The question is: Is this item in a reasonable state of balance?

Important Notes:

1) There is no such thing as perfect balance.
2) The key is that each element is strong enough to have a niche, even if that niche is for very specific playstyles.
3) If you vote no in the poll, please comment on the elements you think are in an unreasonable state of balance.
4) If you vote yes, there is really no need to comment. The poll is the key note.
 
Hard to say anything is balanced/unbalanced for any given WC proposal. balance isn't really a concern when having a mix of large-impact proposals and small-impact proposals is the goal. Only bug fixes remain, I should think.

For example, can you still declare a sphere of influence over a city-state you are at war with? That seems buggy.
 
Hard to say anything is balanced/unbalanced for any given WC proposal. balance isn't really a concern when having a mix of large-impact proposals and small-impact proposals is the goal. Only bug fixes remain, I should think.

For example, can you still declare a sphere of influence over a city-state you are at war with? That seems buggy.

You can. And if you get the sphere, the city-state will declare war on itself.

Overall, I agree that WC proposals don't seem meant to be balanced around each other. Especially given how much their value differs based on the situation; who is ahead in which kind of victory, who has most hammers for projects, who just wants a proposal that doesn't anger anyone else...
 
To me, WC balance means the following:

1) Every resolution has a use, even if its not all the time. For example, sometimes its fine to pass a "weak resolution" that gives you a diplomatic bonus with others, as long as the resolution is not so weak it literally does nothing.
2) No resolution is so strong that passing it breaks the game.
 
I dislike decolonization. If I've invested in allying a bunch of city states I resent losing that investment over something as simple as a world congress vote.
 
To me, WC balance means the following:

1) Every resolution has a use, even if its not all the time. For example, sometimes its fine to pass a "weak resolution" that gives you a diplomatic bonus with others, as long as the resolution is not so weak it literally does nothing.
2) No resolution is so strong that passing it breaks the game.
For me, wc balance is overall resolutions not being too strong or too weak in that controlling the world congress makes any victory easier than any other mechanic.

If, by investing resources in controlling the wc makes victory more likely than investing in any other thing, it is overpowered. And if not investing any resources in world congress makes victory more likely, then it is underpowered.

Then, you can talk about variety of proposals.
 
A little late to the discussion, and although the thread is technically locked, I was wondering if anyone would be for changing the "Global Peace Accords" resolution? I'm pretty sure this resolution has remained the same through the military overhauls that added unit supply and "anti-warmonger fervor," and in its current form serves to help larger nations that can eat the additional maintenance cost while hurting smaller nations' ability to upgrade. Also, at this point in the game warmongers tend to already be vilified, so the warmonger penalty doesn't help much. Even in games where there are several smaller nations that can afford the cost/are currently being conquered, it seems rare that they'll support it.

Changing this to either give an additional combat bonus to nations under the global city average, or maybe reducing the unit supply of larger nations would make this resolution far more useful and help with balancing aggressive nations like the Zulus and Mongolia.

I agree though that pretty much all other resolutions are fine, and any other changes/additions should probably be modmod territory.
 
A little late to the discussion, and although the thread is technically locked, I was wondering if anyone would be for changing the "Global Peace Accords" resolution? I'm pretty sure this resolution has remained the same through the military overhauls that added unit supply and "anti-warmonger fervor," and in its current form serves to help larger nations that can eat the additional maintenance cost while hurting smaller nations' ability to upgrade. Also, at this point in the game warmongers tend to already be vilified, so the warmonger penalty doesn't help much. Even in games where there are several smaller nations that can afford the cost/are currently being conquered, it seems rare that they'll support it.

Changing this to either give an additional combat bonus to nations under the global city average, or maybe reducing the unit supply of larger nations would make this resolution far more useful and help with balancing aggressive nations like the Zulus and Mongolia.

I agree though that pretty much all other resolutions are fine, and any other changes/additions should probably be modmod territory.
The larger the map, the more useful that policy is. If they still have 3+ civs to go through it can be useful.

I would support both Global Peace Accords and it's evil twin to instantly multiply or divide everyone's current warmonger score by the amount they normally do afterwards, especially for the purpose of anti-warmonger fervor. That would be a good, very small change if easily possible.
 
the thread is technically locked.....and any other changes/additions should probably be modmod territory.

I think you nailed it right here. An excellent idea....for a mod mod.

If we ever have a hope to get this baby finished, we have to show discipline. Locked means Locked.
 
Weren't people unhappy about Scholars in Residence? To me the tech cost reduction seems really large. Then again, I don't dislike it too much either, it's only ever a catch-up mechanic.
 
If we ever have a hope to get this baby finished, we have to show discipline. Locked means Locked.
I mean the thread was only open for 2 weeks and had only a 75% agreement (as opposed to some being much higher.)

I think 2 small tweaks are fine, and won't affect any other balance. Major changes should be left to modmods.
 
I mean the thread was only open for 2 weeks and had only a 75% agreement (as opposed to some being much higher.)

I think 2 small tweaks are fine, and won't affect any other balance. Major changes should be left to modmods.

I would hope that this is not the last good idea that comes after a thread is locked. As far as I'm concerned, they can all go into mod mods.
The thread was open for a clearly stated amount of time. 75% may be lower than some, but it is damn high, in a forum where there's constant disagreement (just like I'm disagreeing with you right here, and you with Stalker0). Who is going to decide 1) how long is long enough, 2) what % is high enough, and 3) what's a small tweak? Should we have a vote on that?
 
I mean the thread was only open for 2 weeks and had only a 75% agreement (as opposed to some being much higher.)

If you want stronger consensus on all issues we might as well just forget about the possibility of finishing the project. Project Management is one of the key things I do for work, and I have seen many a project sputter indefinitely trying to get everyone to agree. Debate is excellent...but there comes a time when you have to say enough is enough, we are moving forward.

We haven't been debating these issues for 2 weeks....we have debated them for months, even years. The two weeks is really meant to get people serious about considering their thoughts on the current balance and to express them. And even with just two weeks, its going to take a few months minimum to keep through all of the topics. There is still a lot to cover.
 
If you want stronger consensus on all issues we might as well just forget about the possibility of finishing the project. Project Management is one of the key things I do for work, and I have seen many a project sputter indefinitely trying to get everyone to agree. Debate is excellent...but there comes a time when you have to say enough is enough, we are moving forward.

We haven't been debating these issues for 2 weeks....we have debated them for months, even years. The two weeks is really meant to get people serious about considering their thoughts on the current balance and to express them. And even with just two weeks, its going to take a few months minimum to keep through all of the topics. There is still a lot to cover.
That's fair. I guess we'll need a minor tweaks modmod that can do little things like that.
 
Personally despite the lock on this I'd be very much in favor of these tweaks to Casus Belli/Global Peace Accords, and it'd be a relatively minor change which I think could make the game significantly more enjoyable.

It's logical and actually reflects a change in attitude (important for Anti-Warmonger Fervor etc), and I find I pretty much have to wait until the WC is founded and Casus Belli is passed just so I'm not hated worldwide for conquering one neighbor. While Casus Belli does make warmonger scores decay faster, it's still not really noticeable if your penalty is already high enough.

On the other side of the coin, Global Peace Accords hurts weaker civs more than stronger ones with the unit maintenance penalty, as pointed out.

If there's a community consensus on this specific tweak (say, 6 votes :)), perhaps it could still be considered?
 
I know that the subject is locked, but I don't want to open a new thread just to feel how many of you agree or disagree with the following point:

I think that the production requirement of the world congress projects should be adjusted. In my games, I frequently have the case of them being passed at a point where they are basically crushed by one or two strong civs. While in principle, that's the nature of a production race, I think it would be better having a few more turns of competition (honestly, most projects in my games are finished the latest 2 turns after the resolution is passed, resulting in a weird do-or-die decision of abandoning the project or immediately dedicating all production to it). That strategic element could be made more interesting by either scaling the needed production with era or something that measures how late the proposal is passed, or setting a minimum number of turns for the project to last.
 
I know that the subject is locked, but I don't want to open a new thread just to feel how many of you agree or disagree with the following point:

I think that the production requirement of the world congress projects should be adjusted. In my games, I frequently have the case of them being passed at a point where they are basically crushed by one or two strong civs. While in principle, that's the nature of a production race, I think it would be better having a few more turns of competition (honestly, most projects in my games are finished the latest 2 turns after the resolution is passed, resulting in a weird do-or-die decision of abandoning the project or immediately dedicating all production to it). That strategic element could be made more interesting by either scaling the needed production with era or something that measures how late the proposal is passed, or setting a minimum number of turns for the project to last.
I agree with that. Also, I’ve noticed that unless the AI thinks they can win the production project, they don’t ever even offer the proposal in Congress (though to be honest I do the same thing).
 
Top Bottom