Puppets shouldn't produce urbanization unhappiness + Warmonger discussion.

[paul_soryu]

Also on the topic of Domination Victory itself, recently I had this idea inspired by Civ3 to make Domination requiring only around 66% of the Capitals. I came up with this formula: [second highest number of controlled capitals] + [half of total capitals].

Spoiler some calculations :

- So if there are 12 players and everyone controls only their own capital, this would be 1+6=7
- But if there are 12 players and 2 of them control 6 capitals each, this would be 6+6=12, but as one of the players was conquering capitals the required number would be going down (5+6=11[you control 7], then 10[8], then 9[9]) until it would be equal to your number of capitals.
- If there are 12 players and 3 of them control 4 capitals each, this would be 10, and if someone conquers other player fully, they'll still need one capital of third player to win at 9.
- 12 players, with 4 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 capitals under control, you need 9, so either conquering 2 1 1 1, or lowering the required number by conquering 3 and then 1 to have 8 out of 8 required, or conquering just one capital from 3 and then conquering 1 1 1 (meanwhile if 2 conquered any of 1 it would mean you wouldn't be able to win without attacking him)
- 8 players, 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0, you need 6, conquering 1 wouldn't give you a win, but conquering 1 city off of 2 would since it would lower the requirement to 5

This way it wouldn't discoruage other players from going after domintion victory if someone alredy has 2-3 capitals, in fact it would be a legitimate counterplay against someone going domintion victory. Conquering even one capital ups the number by 1 for a domination player, and at some point you could make it so the domination player has to attack you to win and can't just conquer weaker players with 1 capital ignoring you. And when there are only a couple of strong players remaining, it wouldn't mean they need to conquer just 1 capital to win, they would need to conquer more, which you could counter by playing defensively and going for other victory types meanwhile.

The problems with this are: I don't know if it can be moded to dinamically change the win conditions during the game, AI needs to be trained to understand these rules and make the right decisions, and AI seems to be quite bad at invading other continents, so if you play 8 players game and its 2 continents with 5 and 3 civs, the game can end pretty quickly even though someone else can have a decent scientific lead. Also the new players might be confused by such a system.

Someone here mentioned the latest pre-5.0 AI-only game statistics, I checked it and there is even a "Authority Victories" tab which shows that with 66% rule (just cities and plots, no capitals) the victory types would be much more balanced than they are now. So I guess what I am talking about was discussed before and there are reasons it is not implemented.

 

[paul_soryu]

So I generally feel like I already have enough Production and I can fix my Happiness issues by building Public Works, I cannot as easily trade extra Production for tactical advantages if I go with Industry.

That's true, I always forget about Public Works even though I always build them at some point in my games, I just never think about them in my strategies for some reason. I think Imperialism is best when you didn't go Authority, didn't conquer anyone before that, and just starting to build big army, otherwise bonus to unit production is nice (for airplanes and ships) but not huge

Factories scale really with empire size

This one since it was introduced (it wasn't always this way, right?) always seemed too overpowered for big civilizations. Am I not getting something, aren't 4-6 city Tradition civs at a huge disadvantage?

 

[Voremonger]

Maybe Imperialism could receive some Policy along the lines of "Chanceries and Wire Services treat puppeted Cities as City-State allies"? That would naturally shift the optimal percentage of puppeted Cities towards some value in the middle because the total yields are the product of puppeted Cities and regular Cities. With a Chancery + a Wire Service you would be getting +2 Production, +1 Culture, +1 Science in each City per puppeted City.

 

[Voremonger]

I think Imperialism is best when you didn't go Authority, didn't conquer anyone before that, and just starting to build big army, otherwise bonus to unit production is nice (for airplanes and ships) but not huge

I have the exact opposite opinion. I think Imperialism is good precisely when you've already stacked multiple other military bonuses because those are additional multipliers that let you push your advantage. Also Imperialism gives you a lot of flat bonuses while Industry gives you % bonuses so Imperialism becomes better for wide vs. tall play.

Edit: so what I mean to say is, if you've taken Authority then presumably you've already been warmongering previously and you either have a lot of Cities or you're losing the game.

 

[paul_soryu]

Maybe Imperialism could receive some Policy along the lines of "Chanceries and Wire Services treat puppeted Cities as City-State allies"? That would naturally shift the optimal percentage of puppeted Cities towards some value in the middle because the total yields are the product of puppeted Cities and regular Cities. With a Chancery + a Wire Service you would be getting +2 Production, +1 Culture, +1 Science in each City per puppeted City.

Wow that's a cool idea, I like that

 

[paul_soryu]

Also Imperialism gives you a lot of flat bonuses while Industry gives you % bonuses so Imperialism becomes better for wide vs. tall play.

I agree that flat yields are better for wide play, but in my experience +6 Science and +7 Culture are usually equal or close to +12% from Industry at the time of Industrial Era in most of my cities, and as the game continues Industry will be giving only more and more. At this point of the game all cities are pretty big (12-18 pop) with some Great People Tile Imrovements regardless of previous policies, and I wouldn't want to annex smaller weaker cities anyway due to happiness issues in my main cities.

Huge benefit of Imperialism is that those bonuses (and double monopoly bonus) come much faster than Industry's full +15%. If you have Science/Culture monopolies then I think Imperialism is just straight up better for wide? But they are less common, can be banned, and %Science monopolies (Whales and something else) I think are programmed to only spawn as City-State Luxuries.

Also prior to my current game I didn't take seriously +2 Science bonus to Forts, it seems they are a real powerhouse with a spammable +4 Science.

 

[Voremonger]

I agree that flat yields are better for wide play, but in my experience +6 Science and +7 Culture are usually equal or close to +12% from Industry at the time of Industrial Era in most of my cities, and as the game continues Industry will be giving only more and more. At this point of the game all cities are pretty big (12-18 pop) with some Great People Tile Imrovements regardless of previous policies, and I wouldn't want to annex smaller weaker cities anyway due to happiness issues in my main cities.

Totally agree, when comparing only the yields and nothing else Industry will be better (which makes sense in terms of game balance). What I meant is that Imperialism becomes better when compared against itself for wide play.

%Science monopolies (Whales and something else) I think are programmed to only spawn as City-State Luxuries.

You can definitely get Whales as a starting resource, though it's relatively rare. I think the only other resource that gives a % Science boost is Uranium.

Also prior to my current game I didn't take seriously +2 Science bonus to Forts, it seems they are a real powerhouse with a spammable +4 Science.

Yup, they're pretty cheap in terms of Worker turns too. When I intend to go Imperialism I always pre-build them when I don't currently need my Workers for something else.

 

[hokath]

I came up with this formula: [second highest number of controlled capitals] + [half of total capitals].

Hmm... interesting idea.

I don't know if it can be moded to dinamically change the win conditions during the game, AI needs to be trained to understand these rules and make the right decisions

This isn't a huge problem.

AI seems to be quite bad at invading other continents

But this is something that still needs to be worked on. Kungcheops is looking at it right now I believe.

if you play 8 players game and its 2 continents with 5 and 3 civs, the game can end pretty quickly

Yes this is a concern that you can lose before having any meaningful way to stop the leader.
But then, in an 8 player game, if someone has already taken 4 additional capitals before you can interact with them... well it's probably over anyway.

I guess what I am talking about was discussed before and there are reasons it is not implemented.

Not really. The authority victory classification was just meant to show which victories (culture, diplo, science) were obtained from a "runaway" civ and therefore could have won in really any manner. (To separate from "competitive" wins decided in the end game)

 

[paul_soryu]

My justification is that usually when someone controls ~2/3 of the world that's almost always a win for them, while the lategame warfare is notoriously time consuming. Of course you could just exit the game when you feel like you have won, but that's anticlimactic and getting the victory screen is always nice.

Also, effectively there is only one player which has a chance at getting Domination victory in a given game, even if there are more than one warmonger civs. If someone conquers 2-3 capitals it could be really tedious and too slow for the other warmonger player to go after them, and If the other warmonger goes after other civs and then there are only 2 warmonger players left (especially on different continents) this usually means a stalemate until game time runs out, or until someone goes after other victories not hoping to actually conquer all capitals. With the system that I propose multiple warmongers have better chances of actually winning the game by Domination, which could create interesting scenarios like competing Science and Domination players in the very late game.

Yes this is a concern that you can lose before having any meaningful way to stop the leader.

Well as I said you have a counterplay in capturing someone's capital on your continent so that the required number of capitals was greater than 5 (and then you can make a natural alliance or try conquering the remaining player). This would force the domination player to actually invade the other continent, so it's him coming to your defences, not you coming to his mega-empire island to stop him. Not sure about the AI, but that's definitely a feasible strategy for a human player. Capital captures can be made a global notification, like the wonder constructions, if they are not yet.

 

[azum4roll]

The victory should be only available after some turns have passed after everyone has met the domination player, so there's a chance to at least challenge them.

Science has it locked behind the spaceship.
Culture has it locked behind a project.
Diplomacy has it locked behind two resolutions and one final vote.
There should be something for domination too.

 

[CppMaster]

The victory should be only available after some turns have passed after everyone has met the domination player, so there's a chance to at least challenge them.

Science has it locked behind the spaceship.
Culture has it locked behind a project.
Diplomacy has it locked behind two resolutions and one final vote.
There should be something for domination too.

Nah, it feels artificial. Besides domination victories don't feel premature when they happen.

 

[azum4roll]

Nah, it feels artificial. Besides domination victories don't feel premature when they happen.

It definitely does when you're chilling in your own continent and suddenly get the defeat screen.

 

[Barna1]

Regarding puppet yields, I always found it strange how they interact with empire-wide percentage modifiers. For example, a +20% empire-wide bonus in practice doubles the output of your puppet cities. So stuff like golden ages, rationalism % bonus etc. benefit puppets more than normal cities. I wonder if this is intended at this point, or it would be possible/good to change how these bonuses behave in puppets, and compensate by adjusting the -80% base modifier.

 

[paul_soryu]

The victory should be only available after some turns have passed after everyone has met the domination player, so there's a chance to at least challenge them.

Yes, I thought of a similar idea to only allow Domination victory starting at Industrial Era or even Modern Era. The number of turns could be tied to World Congress foundation, since it is the moment everyone meets each other. Or maybe 2-3 voting sessions?

I think this way it is even more interesting, because now the remaining players/AIs can decide if they are combining their efforts to stop a would-be-winner by invading him (and they would have plenty of time to prepare if the conquests happened earlier), or if someone goes to war with another to bump the number up and force the Domination player to come to him. Imagine 3 players coming after 3 different capitals to split the defender's forces Or how someone would backstab the alliance. Or how the players would turn on each other after they denied the Domination victory.

Also maybe there should be a resolution in World Congress to somehow help the "Anti-Domination Alliance", like giving +%Strength only against this player, or even a flat damage increase like +5. Because I think the defending warmonger will usually be victorious anyway, but I agree that it is better to make him wait than to force a defeat out of nowhere on others.

I like how it makes the game more dynamic and forces more player interaction.

 

[paul_soryu]

Regarding puppet yields, I always found it strange how they interact with empire-wide percentage modifiers. For example, a +20% empire-wide bonus in practice doubles the output of your puppet cities. So stuff like golden ages, rationalism % bonus etc. benefit puppets more than normal cities. I wonder if this is intended at this point, or it would be possible/good to change how these bonuses behave in puppets, and compensate by adjusting the -80% base modifier.

I never even thought of checking it and assumed +20% would increase the remaining 20% of -80% reduction, so it would be 24%. If it makes it into 40% then Puppets is one of the most strange and poorly explained mechanics in the game.

 

[ElliotS]

So to be clear to submit any proposals for balance changes based on this discussion we need to wait for January and propose it in the VP congress? I read through the VP congress guide and that's what I'm getting. Seems almost unanimous that puppets should get upkeep reduction equal to gold reduction. (Which is an idea I like better than losing all gold reduction.)

Plenty of more contentious ideas worth discussing deeper and eventually voting on. I personally don't believe any huge changes are required, especially while we wait to see how AI being better at taking cities affects AI warmonger balance.

Maybe the Authority tree needs some tweaks? Hokath's extension already has proposed some ideas that seem like they can help a lot, and I would love to see them discussed. In particular the +1 production for every 10 units feels like an outlier that starts off horrible and scales extremely well. Authority feels extremely feast-or-famine, and maybe tweaking it to be a big more forgiving when things are only going "okay" would be healthier for the game? Currently Authority (and imperialism and autocracy) show as being TERRIBLE in winrate for AI.

Once the bugs are fixed I'd love to see if that improves, and if possible I'd love to see if L. Vern's next AI test could show which trees the AI's won with more specifically in some way. Like, does authority plummet the winrate of otherwise good civs and all of Mongolia's wins come from when they pick progress/tradition, or is authority bad because the bad civs pick it?

Also would Hokath's suggested "Horsemen to 16cs" be more of a warmonger buff or balance out to everyone? I like Horsemen, but they do feel a bit weak, especially compared to how knights perform.

 

[Voremonger]

Seems almost unanimous that puppets should get upkeep reduction equal to gold reduction.

I can't speak for anyone else but that is something that I would be in favor of.

Maybe the Authority tree needs some tweaks?

One thing that I would like is to receive the 40 Science + Culture not just on conquering a City but also on completely razing it to the ground. My opinion is that conquering a City only to raze it afterwards is just not worthwhile unless you're playing the Aztecs and need to win a war.

Currently Authority (and imperialism and autocracy) show as being TERRIBLE in winrate for AI.

In my games, which I typically play on Epic, there is usually at least one AI taking Authority that is doing okay, but on average they're definitely doing worse than Progress/Tradition. And If I just extrapolate how the game is going I usually don't see a path to victory for the Authority AI, even on Epic they're just too slow to avoid losing to Civs like Korea or Austria.

On a fundamental level my opinion is that Authority should be worse than Progress/Tradition for peaceful play.

Also would Hokath's suggested "Horsemen to 16cs" be more of a warmonger buff or balance out to everyone? I like Horsemen, but they do feel a bit weak, especially compared to how knights perform.

I think it would be a nerf for Civs like Persia where you'd be trying to abuse an UU in the Ancient/Classical Era but a buff to Civs like Byzantium or Spain if you build them for warmongering. Overall though, I would say that buffing Horsemen would be more beneficial for defensive rather than offensive play since they they're most useful for abusing Roads and killing Archers and Catapults.

I'd have to try it again on VP v5 but with Assyria you could rush Horsemen for their high CS and negate their penalty against Cities with a Siege Tower; conveniently you get both of them at Military Theory. So you could build a small force of Horsemen that just runs across the map and razes as many Cities as possible, since those without the Palace or Walls go down in a single turn. I wouldn't exactly call this strategy good due to the high opportunity cost but with 16 CS Horsemen it would definitely be better.

 

[Voremonger]

If we want to buff Authority for the AI specifically my suggestion would be to grant bonuses not just on killing enemy Units but also when you build Units yourself. Assyria and the Ottomans already have such bonuses but I think this mechanic is not very widely distributed (I can't think of any other instances).

Another possible buff, that would be more QoL, would be to grant the City State Influence from killing Barbarians one Tile further out (I don't know whether the AI considers this mechanic at all on the current version). Also maybe destroying an Encampment within X tiles of a City State could always grant some base amount of influence vs. only when you have the specific Quest.

 

[paul_soryu]

grant bonuses not just on killing enemy Units but also when you build Units yourself

Maybe also replace the bonus on kill with a bonus on inflicting damage, like The Huns currently have for attacking cities, not just capturing them. This way even if the AI isn't good at finishing off units it still gets some yields, while human players will get the same yields as for killing units.

 

[hokath]

we need to wait for January and propose it in the VP congress?

Yes. Currently I don't foresee a reason why we can't have a congress session in January.
As such, we will need to fill the 3rd MAGI slot -- that will happen in December