Puppets and city bombardment

LukaSlovenia29

Emperor
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
1,500
Do you feel that it's balanced/do you feel that it's suitable that puppets can bombard nearby enemy units?

It's the one thing you can do with puppets, so it sticks out as an exception to the rule. I think that should be removed, it would make keeping puppets harder and would represent an important consideration whether to puppet or not. Given the recent buffs to puppeting, I think a slight nerf wouldn't be problematic.

Thanks for your replies.
 
So you think better to make auto bombardment or remove bombardment from puppets completely?
 
Nope, they need to defend themselves. They are puppets not dummies.

I already stated that I dislike current iteration of puppets, but not in this regard.

To me, puppets seem a little too easy and convenient right now. What do you dislike?
 
I'd remove it altogether. Puppets would still be able to defend themselves (by inflicting damage on attacking melee units), but they'd be less capable of defending themselves compared to annexed cities.
 
To me, puppets seem a little too easy and convenient right now. What do you dislike?
Being too easy and convenient. I think there must have some happiness cost (even if small) to prevent too fast expansion. It's also a clear signal to people that don't know about supply limits and defending capabilities, that the empire is getting too big for its own goodness.
 
Being too easy and convenient. I think there must have some happiness cost (even if small) to prevent too fast expansion. It's also a clear signal to people that don't know about supply limits and defending capabilities, that the empire is getting too big for its own goodness.

Agreed.
 
Being too easy and convenient. I think there must have some happiness cost (even if small) to prevent too fast expansion. It's also a clear signal to people that don't know about supply limits and defending capabilities, that the empire is getting too big for its own goodness.
So they're too easy and convenient, but having a bunch of them will lose you the game? That doesn't sound convenient.

My biggest problem with puppets is that the 25% :c5food:/:c5production: penalty means if you select an early puppet you never want to annex it. Better to leave it a rotting stone-age city with marginal yields that denies space to the enemy.

If I was going to change puppets I would do this:
Puppet cites generate +1 :c5unhappy:, scaling with era. This can be counted by leaving a garrison in the city.
Puppet :c5food:/:c5production: penalties removed.
Imperialism's policy obviously doesn't buff :c5food:/:c5production:.

Optional:
All other penalties increased from 75% to 80%.
Imperialism boost to other yields can be more optionally adjusted + or - 5% depending on how it's performing in AI tests. (40 or 50% yields seems cleaner than 45%.)

I feel like this is a good balance of what everyone wants. If you're still not convinced consider this:

A puppet empire needs a lot of Garrisons to keep it's puppets from becoming super unhappy and leaving. If you don't annex enough you don't have the supply limit to both maintain the garrisons and defend yourself, let alone conquer more cities.

This pushes you finding a smart balance of cities to Puppet, Raze or Annex. Right now it's true that a puppet in the snow is still fine. Is that true when you need to leave a garrison there to prevent 5 unhappiness in industrial?

It also makes Annexing puppets a thing, which is what I think is intended and good.

If you're worried about the role of annexing outright vs puppeting then annexing:
Obviously annexing outright is a bit weaker, but not much. The reduced unrest time is HUGE on a warfront, and the choice of what buildings to make is vitally important to speeding the recovery of a city. I think you'll find it's very balanced.
 
Getting back to the topic at hand.

I think puppets should be able to bombard attackers, but if the AI chose the target then I think that would be interesting. I think it makes a lot of sense If puppet bombardment was automated.
 
Puppet cites generate +1 :c5unhappy:, scaling with era. This can be counted by leaving a garrison in the city.
Could work. Easy to understand. But big puppets empires would be unmanageable in the late game.

Puppet :c5food:/:c5production: penalties removed.
Agree. They are not building units for us, the other buildings they might build will have a big penalty, so it's not like a well developed puppet will turn the tides.

Imperialism's policy obviously doesn't buff :c5food:/:c5production:
Obviously.


What's not so good about being too easy and convenient, is that it's a trap for the unwary. This is game breaking for many players, and the most part is not going to ask here what they are doing wrong. It's amazing how many people think that Vox Populi AI is cheating, just because AI knows the game better than the casual player.

Back to topic. No need to remove the city shoot feature. It's not going to stop anyone anyways without some garrisoned units.
 
I like puppets as they are currently. I don’t see the need to reinvent the wheel again.

G
I think balance-wise puppets are fine.

My only gripe is that until I get imperialism if I get a city and decide to puppet it, that's a city that's never getting annexed.

It's hardly game-breaking, but it doesn't feel as good as it could.

I guess my point is that sometimes you look at a mechanic and go "That's amazing game-design!" The recent puppet change feels like a big step towards that, but I think this could make it perfect.

Previously we had puppets that were a trap for inexperienced players (because they were so bad), now they're a tiny bit of a trap (players that go all puppets and can't build a big enough army might not realize that's the problem) but mostly good balance wise, but they don't feel like they fit perfectly with all parts of the system.

The cost of a troop or unhappiness is a good way to incentive annexing, and very easy for new players to understand.

It's also not so oppressive that players can't deal with it or can't have a good amount of puppets, but it's enough that you might decide to torch some cities.

Overall I won't lose sleep if there are no changes, but if the clamoring reaches a point where you decide to make a change those are what I suggest.

What's not so good about being too easy and convenient, is that it's a trap for the unwary. This is game breaking for many players, and the most part is not going to ask here what they are doing wrong. It's amazing how many people think that Vox Populi AI is cheating, just because AI knows the game better than the casual player.
This is a good point, even if it irks me. Perfect game design is hard because you need to account for stupidity, which I tend to want to punish.
 
I think balance-wise puppets are fine.

My only gripe is that until I get imperialism if I get a city and decide to puppet it, that's a city that's never getting annexed.

It's hardly game-breaking, but it doesn't feel as good as it could.

I guess my point is that sometimes you look at a mechanic and go "That's amazing game-design!" The recent puppet change feels like a big step towards that, but I think this could make it perfect.

Previously we had puppets that were a trap for inexperienced players (because they were so bad), now they're a tiny bit of a trap (players that go all puppets and can't build a big enough army might not realize that's the problem) but mostly good balance wise, but they don't feel like they fit perfectly with all parts of the system.

The cost of a troop or unhappiness is a good way to incentive annexing, and very easy for new players to understand.

It's also not so oppressive that players can't deal with it or can't have a good amount of puppets, but it's enough that you might decide to torch some cities.

Overall I won't lose sleep if there are no changes, but if the clamoring reaches a point where you decide to make a change those are what I suggest.


This is a good point, even if it irks me. Perfect game design is hard because you need to account for stupidity, which I tend to want to punish.

Tying troops down in puppet cities doubles down on the penalty they have towards military size. Not sure if that's an elegant solution. What if production/food are brought back to 100% and all other yields are dropped to 20%? Then we make the imperialism bonus add 30% (so Venice would get 130% from puppets for all non f/p yields, and all others would get 50%)?

G
 
Tying troops down in puppet cities doubles down on the penalty they have towards military size. Not sure if that's an elegant solution. What if production/food are brought back to 100% and all other yields are dropped to 20%? Then we make the imperialism bonus add 30% (so Venice would get 130% from puppets for all non f/p yields, and all others would get 50%)?

G
I'm okay with that, but some people seem irked by the lack of cost. As a mass owner of puppets however I'm happy to give that one a try. ;P

If we determine that a cost is needed, that's the point. If people not realizing that the low supply is one of the main weaknesses of a puppet-only empire is a problem, doubling down on it will teach them pretty fast. I think a well-built empire could puppet half their cities, garrison them and still have a formidable army.

Then again your idea still works, because it allows you to just annex puppets to increase supply cap. The problem with the current solution is that even if a newer player realizes his mistake if he annexes the cities they're all underdeveloped and worthless. With your idea he'll have sacrificed efficiency and put himself in a bad spot, but possibly be able to work out of the ditch.

I would also add a tooltip to the puppeting box/option warning about low supply.
 
The most obvious concern is that the game teaches you that garrisoning is good, yet these changes offer 0 benefit from puppet garrisons.

So where does that leave us? A ton of people garrisoning troops in puppets for no good reason, and not really grasping why that's pointless.

Not everyone is on the forum philosophizing as to the benefits/risks of the mechanics of the puppet city system. They put a troop in a city because that's what they've been doing in civ for 20 years, and they see the number on top of the city go up a little, and they think they are doing what they are supposed to.
 
I'm okay with that, but some people seem irked by the lack of cost. As a mass owner of puppets however I'm happy to give that one a try. ;P

If we determine that a cost is needed, that's the point. If people not realizing that the low supply is one of the main weaknesses of a puppet-only empire is a problem, doubling down on it will teach them pretty fast. I think a well-built empire could puppet half their cities, garrison them and still have a formidable army.

Then again your idea still works, because it allows you to just annex puppets to increase supply cap. The problem with the current solution is that even if a newer player realizes his mistake if he annexes the cities they're all underdeveloped and worthless. With your idea he'll have sacrificed efficiency and put himself in a bad spot, but possibly be able to work out of the ditch.

I would also add a tooltip to the puppeting box/option warning about low supply.
Yeah, right.

What would really teach people is puppets without garrisons costing supply. You can have a garrison, but in case you move the unit, you lose the supply.
 
Usually I leave troops to garrison cities because of Authority + happiness anyway. Removing food/hammer penalty would be a huge incentive to annex later. Removing hammer penalty also means more building maintenance. Could get costly, in a good, balanced way. I agree with all the others though, right now, puppets are a bit too convenient. Denying the enemy space for almost no cost is incredibly powerful.
 
Top Bottom