Discussion in 'General Balance' started by ElliotS, Jan 17, 2018.
HOW HAVE I NOT SEEN THESE VIDEOS!?!?!
I mean if we all went full mad-max we'd probably halt global warming.
Except the premise of mad max is that we could go full mad max and we would STILL double down on all the stupid shortsighted things we do to perpetuate global warming
If I capture a wonder that pops a great person or gives a bunch of instant yields, I'd really like to get those yields.
Alternatively, what about sacking wonders / nat wonders for culture? They're there, grayed out or something, so that if the city gets captured back the original builder gets the wonders back, but no one else can use them at all.
The bonus is 33% per capital, right?
It's a nice idea, tiding warscore to combat penalty, but I'm not sure that it manages to have the same effect.
What it would do is, probably, add another layer at warmongers to prevent non-stop wars. Something like, ok, you are already winning this war, are you going to make your demands and make peace or what? That was war weariness for.
Domination combat penalty was something different. It was intended to prevent a snowballing warmonger from crushing everything under his feet. So the closer the warmonger to the domination victory, the harder it becomes to fight (though it was balanced with the fact of having just more elite units).
+ Remove domination combat penalty. Make AI more willing to declare joint wars against a player that is advancing in the Domination Victory or has a high warmonger diplomatic status. This way, instead of fighting with a combat penalty, such players will need to fight against more civs at the same time.
- How would this affect different map sizes? In a tiny map an aggressive warmonger probably won't need to fight against more than two civs at the same time.
Solution B (my favorite):
+ Domination combat penalty is calculated by
Max value (40-50?) * (Population in captured non puppet cities) / (Total empire population).
Population from puppets does not account. Why population? This way, controlling capitals punishes more than normal cities, but not absolutely more. Also, a city that has been decimated is a drag to the economy, no need to be also a hinderance to combat. Why not puppets? Because they bring unhappiness if left for long, it would be too punishing if they also add to combat penalty.
+ This brings a new strategy of razing and resettling, making pioneers useful for something. (This should come with a huge diplomatic penalty, though). Capitals cannot be razed.
+ Keeping captured cities and letting them grow might be good for the economy, supporting a larger army, but bad for combat purposes.
+ Having all your captured cities as puppets will hurt happiness, so it affects combat too.
- Venice will need to be addressed differently, if all their cities are puppets.
A word on war weariness.
I don't see too logical that war weariness is increased by war duration. People should not care about a war where no one is dying. We have a city here in Andalousia that it's still at war against France. Officially. After two hundred years. But war score should affect strongly. If we are already winning a war, why do we continue fighting? What for? Unless we are jingoist (autocracy ideology). If we are losing, war weariness should increase no matter what. It's demoralizing to be losing. So the normal situation should be that the civ that is losing suffers war weariness earlier, making it more difficult for that civ to keep fighting, and the civ that is winning will have an advantage in such moments, but after some objectives (war score) are achieved, population won't support war anymore.
With the sole exception of the slight decrease in war weariness when a city is lost, introduced by G as a last effort of retaking the city.
You missed what Gazebo said. He said warmonger score (AKA "They're worried you'll plunge the world into an age of darkness") not warscore.
I don't really like the the capital penalty as it is. It incentivites weird play (leaving capitals) and renders going for a true domination victory suboptimal cause it is ofter easier to go for one of the other victory types
Wrong reading. My bad.
Tying resistance bonus to warmonger score is an elegant solution with a lot of potential. My main concern with it is that the formula for warmonger penalties is very opaque. That’s fine when it’s used for just AI attitudes, since players shouldn’t be able to perfectly anticipate how an AI will react. But when it determines the effectiveness of your army, it can end up feeling arbitrary.
On the topic of making capturing capitals more attractive, what if taking a civ’s capital was required for securing their capitulation? That way you can’t completely eliminate a civ as a threat unless you take their capital.
Well I don't know about you, but an attack on a certain economic wonder certainly riled up a huge warmonger score for West Asia...
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of your army isn't reduced. The effectiveness of their and only their army is reduced. If we had to expand it, that means the Military Overview is going to get a rework to include which AI civilizations has an increased resistance bonus(or an increased reduced resistance bonus due to cultural influence as well) .
This is usually what gets the AI to capitulate immediately anyway. It's not necessary since some empires didn't want to lose their capital and capitulated early after getting heavy losses.
A question about the warmonger thing, this is a buff to AI that hate warmongers, right? Because Austria is almost ready to denounce me just for declaring war, meanwhile the huns tolerate it. That toleration lowers his resistance bonus, right?
Not saying the idea is wrong, just pointing out a weird side effect
Yeah that's correct. Austria are willing to fight back with an increased bonus compared to the Huns who might not even care about your warmongering. However, conquer one of his city and he won't care the same next time you meet him.
I forgot whenever or not you get more warmonger score if you backstab a civilization....
Technically, no - warmonger value is the same, however the 'threshold' in which she will tolerate your warmonger value is lower. The big difference is that opinion/religion/ideology etc. will change your warmonger value from civ-to-civ, so some civs will fight harder against you.
Could you give us a rough explanation on how warmonger value is calculated? Just curious.
Separate names with a comma.