Miscellaneous 'Broken Things' Thread

[crdvis16]

same mechanic really if u start losing favor with the pledge, itll warn you. Send ur army or bulk your army with them and ur pledge is secured.

I like the idea of making CS politics a bit more regional/local and more realistic.

 

[Gazebo]

I wish Pledge of Protections were more attached to whenever or not you could bully them. If you could bully them... but choose to Pledge instead it makes a more feasible reason to Pledge.

It would become very micro-managey to maintain them.

G

 

[Enginseer]

It would become very micro-managey to maintain them.

G

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.

 

[CrazyG]

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.

 

[CrazyG]

What's currently really bizzare about pledge to protect and tribute is how your military score drops when you settle more cities.

 

[Gazebo]

Ideas for global effect on Landmark creation:

• Flat global happiness
• Global Boredom reduction (-2 for every Landmark constructed)
• Flat, % boost with all civs (+2% modifier with all major civs per landmark; Landmarks constructed by you, but owned by a foreign civ provide +10%)
• Global Faith cost discount (-3% on all faith purchases per landmark)
• Global % GPP generation (+3% GPR on Empire per landmark)
• Resting Influence increase (+5 resting Influence per Landmark; Landmark's built in CS territory give 120 instantly)
• Reduced Influence decay (Each landmark constructed reduces influence decay by 3%)
• Increased CS gifts (yields from CS friends/allies increased by 5% for every Landmark created)

I like the bonus GP rate the best myself. Inspire future generations to greatness with landmarks of the past. Artifacts boost GWAM bulbing, so Landmarks makes more GWAM appear faster. The Faith discount idea accomplishes the same thing, more or less.

If landmarks had more diplomatic effects, they could be secondary to a Diplo VC. Artifacts for CV, Landmarks all over for DV.

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.
G

 

[TranceBlossom]

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.

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.

 

[saranwali]

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.

 

[crdvis16]

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.

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.

 

[Moi Magnus]

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.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

What do People think about moving Open Borders to Theology for the sake of Missionaries? Open Borders agreement feels like it comes a little too late at late Medieval for Religious reasons.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I think Order's corporation thing would fit Autocracy more and vice versa. As an Autocrat at this stage I typically don't even have enough other friendly civ/CS cities to get my base limit up before the game's done, let alone the one with Syndicalism.

 

[chicorbeef]

I think Order's corporation thing would fit Autocracy more and vice versa. As an Autocrat at this stage I typically don't even have enough other friendly civ/CS cities to get my base limit up before the game's done, let alone the one with Syndicalism.

Vassals.

 

[Stalker0]

What do People think about moving Open Borders to Theology for the sake of Missionaries? Open Borders agreement feels like it comes a little too late at late Medieval for Religious reasons.

I like that missionaries have that period where they have to really work to get deep within the borders, I think its fine. And certainly not "broken"

 

[Minh Le]

I just notice Rationalism gives 0 happiness. Is this intended? Because I swim in happiness going Imperialism but struggle at -30 going Rationalism, same game, 10 cities empire, Progress - Statecraft.

 

[pineappledan]

The scaler gives global needs reduction instead

 

[phantomaxl1207]

Rationalism also should have 1 per University.

 

[Gazebo]

I just notice Rationalism gives 0 happiness. Is this intended? Because I swim in happiness going Imperialism but struggle at -30 going Rationalism, same game, 10 cities empire, Progress - Statecraft.

The needs reduction is pretty good. If it’s perenially a problem we could adjust it upwards.

 

[Rekk]

I think tourism modifiers due to boredom need to be two-way. Currently, for example, England with 19 boredom gets a +60% bonus to tourism against Wales with 20 boredom, while Wales gets a 0% bonus against England. Why should Wales' tourism bonus completely nullified just because England is slightly less bored? Either England should only get a 3% bonus against Wales, or preferably, Wales should get its 57%, while England keeps its 60%.

 

[crdvis16]

I think the policy requirement for Hubble is a bit high, even compared to other wonders of its era. I assume it's a wonder that should be used to sprint to a science victory but in my current game (3-17) even the culture leading China lacks the policy count to build it. I'll probably get enough policies right around the time I will have already unlocked nearly all techs anyway and don't have the hammers to spare as I build spaceship parts. I was able to build the great firewall though, as it has a much lower policy requirement despite being at the same tech level as Hubble.