Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Gazebo, Nov 27, 2018.
I like the idea of making CS politics a bit more regional/local and more realistic.
It would become very micro-managey to maintain them.
Isn't that a good thing, however? I feel it's so easy to take on Alexander's Coalition of City-States when he's the top power but he can barely honor his pledge of protection because of his military's proximity to those city-states. Nevertheless, I feel a community polling should take place if the code to transition is not costly.
In order for a military unit to be counted as nearby the city state, it needs to be within 6 tiles of the city, which is very close. If tribute is a requirement to pledge to protect you will have to leave big armies within close proximity constantly, and lose your pledge when you march elsewhere.
What's currently really bizzare about pledge to protect and tribute is how your military score drops when you settle more cities.
The easiest and best is the first, and it's the one I'm going to do. The others have compounding issues that I think could be an issue.
I agree with this and with G. It sounds like it would be micromanagement hell to maintain pledges of protection with multiple city states, and I think it would be impossible if you're at war and need most of your troops on the front line attacking/defending. I agree that city states should be more sensitive to local power levels, but reusing the bullying calculations isn't the way to do it unless you make some major changes to the formula.
What if making a pledge depends on being able to tribute, but the pledge continues unthreatened unless a major civ demands heavy tribute? While in a pledge, your local military strength can give a negative modifier to other civs tribute ability.
More player agency, because you have to choose whether it’s worth stationing units near the CS and for how long.
But less arbitrary, in that the player can adjust combat strength in proportion to approaching neighbors (looking at you, Mongolia). And maybe a warning once a major nears tribute-level local troops with any of your pledges.
And, at least when allied to the CS, war with the aggressor prevents it from breaking your pledge. Which is exactly what the CS wants out of your pledge.
If it wouldn't be a huge pain I could see just using a much larger radius for units to count toward proximity for pledging than what tribute uses. So if tribute requires units be within 6 tiles then make pledge of protection count units 4x as far at 24 tiles, for instance. Maybe make it scale with map size if needed. That would make your pledges more localised but shouldn't require much in terms of micromanagent as troops in your territory likely count. It should also be easier to pledge nearby CSs than trying to be top 50% in military score.
Also, side question- does the proximity formula for tribute take into account roads and rough terrain? If it does then it naturally gets easier over time with roads and railroads which is nice.
If I remember correctly, the main reason why tribute is only 6 tiles (instead of a function decreasing with the distance, or whatever), it is because it is too long to compute otherwise.
If you multiply by 4 the radius, you multiply by 16 the computation time.
Separate names with a comma.