The Protection Tribute Dance

[Gidoza]

I've been thinking about pledging protection to a city-state...and how it actually doesn't make much sense to me, really. You can pledge to basically all of them if you want just by having a big military - but I have to ask myself: why would some of them care? Yes, I realize that this is why the negative influence modifier comes in for damaged cities, and that may have to do, but I still want to talk more about it, for two reasons - 1. Big military to offer protection doesn't necessarily make sense, and 2. I can't see any particular reason why one couldn't offer protection with a smaller military.

Allow me to explain.

At least in my mind, pledging protection doesn't just mean, "Eh, I say I will protect you - take my word for it and I'll begin to send help if it doesn't seem like you can handle things by yourself." I see it as more of, "I am making a pledge - and I am keeping it. Now."

What this entails for me is an actual and real sacrifice to keep the pledge going. To make a pledge - you need to have 2 units bordering or in the City-State's area of influence (or perhaps more - kind of like demanding tribute, to demonstrate that you have a real military). Once the pledge is made, at least 1 of your military units must remain within 2 tiles of the border of the City-State, or the pledge is cancelled after say 5 turns.

This does several things.

1. Pledging required an actual sacrifice - one of your units is effectively "donated" to a CS forever if you want to maintain the pledge.

2. Anyone can pledge - it is not focused on global military (How would CS know this, anyways?).

3. You're protecting only the CS you're protecting. Yes, I know, it's tautological - but that's the point. You can't pledge to CS on the other side of the ocean just because they're isolated and there's no imminent threats: no defensive force - no pledge!

Because this requires a meaningful level of devotion from the player, the bonus it provides could be buffed somehow. (Should I mention that the odd randomizations of quests ought to be tightened a little so we don't get quests that offer nothing or too much?) I see this as potentially being a much more sensible approach to the matter.



My second topic, which I won't elaborate on much, is that of asking for tribute. I mean, I guess the parade is OK, it's just a bit lame to go in circles all the time. I pondered on the idea of tribute being both an immediate and extended phenomenon - that is, you receive tribute because the CS is scared of you from your army nearby. An extension of the above, a thought, but that's all for now.

Cheers!
-Gidoza

 

[ashendashin]

So the thing about PtP is that it's a sort of leverage for the CS and the players diplomacy interests. You don't have to live up to the pledge, but it diminishes your influence and leaves the CS as fair game for bullies. Having a strong military is already enough to deter many civs from messing with you, so a PtP is essentially a show of cementing them as part of your sphere of influence. There's real sacrifice already because it can hurt relations with other civs.

I thought G was going to implement extra requirements for PtP like having a connection and such. Is that not a thing yet? Haven't gotten far enough to try lately.

 

[StevenV]

1. Pledging required an actual sacrifice - one of your units is effectively "donated" to a CS forever if you want to maintain the pledge.

I would like to see such thing, but I would keep the control of these units at the human player. I don't want to see that my archer is embarked by the CS to "defend" the city when others attack the city with a fleet.
Something like a "special promotion" that did not allow the unit to move e.g more than 5 tiles away from the CS. This would make sure that the "donated" unit is used in the proper way: defend the CS.

 

[Gidoza]

I would like to see such thing, but I would keep the control of these units at the human player. I don't want to see that my archer is embarked by the CS to "defend" the city when others attack the city with a fleet.
Something like a "special promotion" that did not allow the unit to move e.g more than 5 tiles away from the CS. This would make sure that the "donated" unit is used in the proper way: defend the CS.

To be sure, I did in fact mean that the human (or AI) player keeps his unit and simply has it near the border (hence why I said "effectively" donated - it is costing you one unit count to keep it there...but of course, you can always cancel the pledge and pull it away).

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I

At least in my mind, pledging protection doesn't just mean, "Eh, I say I will protect you - take my word for it and I'll begin to send help if it doesn't seem like you can handle things by yourself." I see it as more of, "I am making a pledge - and I am keeping it. Now."

But that's what a pledge is? A promise. Promise does not equal something is guaranteed, it doesn't mean.

1. Pledging required an actual sacrifice - one of your units is effectively "donated" to a CS forever if you want to maintain the pledge.

Having an unit two tiles away from the CS is a terrible idea. The game can already become a bit of a slog later on (like any 4X title, nothing can be done about that), and you want to add even more micromanagement just because you don't feel the name fits, even though it currently does 100% of what the name implies. It already requires a lot - either for you to be close or be able to send a TR and having a top 60% military, and it's fine.

2. Anyone can pledge - it is not focused on global military (How would CS know this, anyways?).

This is a game, and even in real world everyone can say that a pledge of protection for Budapest/Hungary from, say, Russia or USA would be more valuable than that from Ethiopia or Egypt. Not a valid argument. Even without internet, a CS probably knows and trades somehow with its associates and information should get out that, let's say, Rome is very huge and scary and shouldn't be messed with. As a CS lord/governor if you see a huge friendly empire and it's known it's military is huge, it's obvious their protection is valued. Small kingdom with a small military would be much less so. And even if that was somehow ahistorical (though it isn't), gameplay beats reason. That's why a temple like Wat is a constabulary, etc. I don't know why a CS would care about a pledge of protection from a small, three-city empire which is backwards technologically, militarily and culturally just because it has a spearman on its border, and with your system that civ would be able to make that pledge, despite the fact it wouldn't be able to actually act if anything happened. The current system is in my opinion by far the best we've ever had.

3. You're protecting only the CS you're protecting. Yes, I know, it's tautological - but that's the point. You can't pledge to CS on the other side of the ocean just because they're isolated and there's no imminent threats: no defensive force - no pledge!

The name is not "direct protection of CS" but pledge of protection. A pledge is a promise and doesn't necessarily equal actual doing, and it requires you to have access to the CS (via trade route at least), so it pretty much already is the case without requiring insane micromanagement.

My second topic, which I won't elaborate on much, is that of asking for tribute. I mean, I guess the parade is OK, it's just a bit lame to go in circles all the time. I pondered on the idea of tribute being both an immediate and extended phenomenon - that is, you receive tribute because the CS is scared of you from your army nearby. An extension of the above, a thought, but that's all for now.

I don't get it? That's how it works already, it's based on the units proximity to CS (that and your total military compared to others).


By the way, I seriously feel like last days people are trying way too hard to come up with ways to fix stuff that isn't broken for absolutely no reason. As it is pledge of protection rewards the strong because it makes sense and the solution presented here fixes nothing. That's probably because there's no problem here, all I saw mentioned here is basically just feeling that the name doesn't fit?

 

[Gidoza]

Okay, several problems with your analysis.

1. My formula for pledging does not require more micromanagement - you have a unit nearby, you hit "alert," and you're done. That's it. Not an argument.

2. Knowing that some Civilization somewhere is powerful is meaningless. If some military man in China right now says that he pledges to protect me, and remains in China, I'm simply going to laugh at him, because his pledge is meaningless. I'm certainly not going to pay him extra for his "protection." On the other hand, there's a dude down the street who has a big sword - he's not the best out there - BUT he's actually capable of doing something for me. That matters more to me than the hollow word from some guy on the other side of the planet. Military might is not an argument - proximity and actuality of protection is what matters.

3. Okay, so let's say we make it strictly about pledging and not about doing the deed. What counts as breaking one's word? Having smaller military than someone else isn't breaking your word, and isn't relevant. On the other hand, if the CS is attacked and you're not helping somehow, that certainly qualifies for breaking the pledge. Military might is unrelated to pledging, whereas concrete action matters. As previously noted, putting one unit on alert does not increase micromanagement and in fact requires no micromanagement at all, and this is a concrete action you would take if you at all mean your promise. So again, you don't have an argument.


And yes, this is broken - when I can't pledge to protect my CS in my own territory from barbarians when nobody else has met them and my forces are more than enough to do the job - that is indeed broken. The system makes no sense.

As for what you said about tribute - you missed my point, but that's OK, I'll leave it alone.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Okay, several problems with your analysis.

1. My formula for pledging does not require more micromanagement - you have a unit nearby, you hit "alert," and you're done. That's it. Not an argument.

Yes it does. It's still one more action and a wasted unit for no reason but "it makes no sense if you think about it in real-world terms". Nothing makes sense really, why should Order's Resettlement add citizens when communist resettlements in real life actually reduced populations? Also TR requirement is much easier and AI friendly, your idea would need more work and it wouldn't even be better in the end, it'd be a pain for anyone involved and still make no sense. It'd be most likely outdated stuff, and one unit cannot possibly defend a CS from a real invasion force. Why should they care that you've sent a dozen men to do a job where a thousand is needed?

Trade route requirement is also better. So if I'm a tiny technologically behind empire with barely any military on the other continent, just sending a single unit to the other one means I can get the benefits of Pledge, despite the fact the CS is pretty much surrounded by ultra-runaways because all the strongest guys are on the other continent? How does it make any sense? That unit can't do anything against their power, my civ is completely elsewhere (maybe cannot even send a TR) and has a laughable CS-like military. Why would they care and give me anything for any sort of pledge when I can't actually do anything? It makes no sense neither, and it's also heavily anti-AI.

2. Knowing that some Civilization somewhere is powerful is meaningless. If some military man in China right now says that he pledges to protect me, and remains in China, I'm simply going to laugh at him, because his pledge is meaningless. I'm certainly not going to pay him extra for his "protection." On the other hand, there's a dude down the street who has a big sword - he's not the best out there - BUT he's actually capable of doing something for me. That matters more to me than the hollow word from some guy on the other side of the planet. Military might is not an argument - proximity and actuality of protection is what matters.

It's not thugs and streets, it's countries. If Venice has an army of 10 Spearmen, why would Vatican care for its pledge of protection no matter how close it is when everyone around has 50 Pikemen, 30 Heavy Skirmishers and 10 Trebuchets? Even if no one else is around, the guy who starts alone on a continent with CS would be rewarded for nothing with your system. He'd be able to be the weakest of all civs on the world but he'd still get free pledge rewards just for sending a unit to CSs because they'd not know of others. It's a broken idea because it possibly rewards weakness. If you want good stuff, be strong and be rewarded. It might not make sense that a CS "knows" you're actually pretty weak even if you're the strongest of the guys he knows, but it's for the best gameplay-wise and in this way it makes the most sense. If a Civ can send a Trade Route there, it can also move the units to the CS, and since it has a big miiltary (or it wouldn't be in the top 60%), it's protection matters. I don't see your issue.

Also current system takes proximity into account. You must be close or able to send a trade route there, which is much better than being forced to waste one unit and actions which is more actions. Your argument here is moot. Not to mention the sword guy's protection doesn't matter when everyone else on the street has guns. What's he going to do against a gang of gunners, use magic to turn himself into an anime/jRPG protagonist? He's even more of a target as he displays the weapon openly (can't exactly shove a sword you-know-where to hide it)

3. Okay, so let's say we make it strictly about pledging and not about doing the deed. What counts as breaking one's word? Having smaller military than someone else isn't breaking your word, and isn't relevant. On the other hand, if the CS is attacked and you're not helping somehow, that certainly qualifies for breaking the pledge. Military might is unrelated to pledging, whereas concrete action matters. As previously noted, putting one unit on alert does not increase micromanagement and in fact requires no micromanagement at all, and this is a concrete action you would take if you at all mean your promise. So again, you don't have an argument.

It's not breaking your word, but it makes you seem less reliable. If most of the world is stronger than you and the CS knows it, it should also know your promise of protection is not worth much. You don't break your word, but the CS doesn't trust you to fulfill the pledge because you're too weak, so make more units if you want the benefits. It makes gameplay sense, which is the most important. Concrete action? It's just moving an unit, you're not forced to attack. If I just send Warriors to all CSs and keep them there, I get free Protection even when it's Renaissance? What can the Warrior do, tickle the Heavy Skirmishers of a runaway? You have no argument here neither. If it should be up-to-date units, that requires even more modding and changes to code.

Not to mention you're not thinking of the AI. Gazebo would need to explain to them this system whereas they seem to perfectly understand it as it is (if you want PoP, be able to send a trade route and have one of the top militaries). Your solution would require them to waste troops, consider if they want them there or not and if they made mistakes, they'd be easier to take care of. As it is now, it's way better for them.

And yes, this is broken - when I can't pledge to protect my CS in my own territory from barbarians when nobody else has met them and my forces are more than enough to do the job - that is indeed broken. The system makes no sense.

It's pledge of protection. It doesn't say from what, but considering you need to be one of the stronger civs, it seems to be about protecting from strong Civilisation-type threats. Sure, it makes no sense that you might be the strongest on your continent and the CS might not agree to be protected by you, but why should we reward weakness? That's the thing that makes the least sense. So if I start alone on a continent with 8 CS, I should make 8 units, send them there and get free Protection rewards for doing nothing despite the fact my military is probably weaker than what they have, let alone any other Civ in the game? It makes no sense neither. Gameplay wise, and that's what's important. There might be many things that historically make sense but are there for gameplay. Movement makes no sense, the units are way too slow and can take hundreds of years to get through one (city-sized) forest, etc. Gameplay over reason, and if it makes sense gameplay-wise, that's what matters. If you're weak you don't deserve to gain from that as that's just a bad idea.

As you're alone on the continent and nobody else can reach those CSs, just make Envoys. Nobody will mind, nobody can counter that, you get free yields. You don't deserve to be weak and also get free Influence/more CS quest rewards just because you're the only one to meet them and moved a mighty lvl1 Warrior next to them, that's unfair for those who spend a lot of Production, Gold and Gold per turn to make a big military, and that's what really makes no sense.

 

[Funak]

I'm with Enrico here, this does not seem like a very good idea.

 

[CrazyG]

I believe G added a requirement that you either have to be able to establish a trade route with a CS, or be allied with it, in order to pledge to protect it. This makes sense, as early on you can only protect neighbors, where as later on you can protect CS in much farther places

The only time I find the pledge to protect silly is when I'm already at war with someone, who has pledged to protect a CS, especially if I'm clearly winning. Why would I care if Austria is protecting you, I'm already killing her? It takes a long time to lose a pledge due to military decay. With all that said, I can live with the current state

 

[tu_79]

I have to agree with all the seasoned players. That would be just a minor mini game trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Even if I usually never care to offer those protections. My army is usually the weakest and I accept that I am not going to improve my CS relationships with my army. I have other means.

 

[Enginseer]

mrw the UK pledged to protect Poland but we know that didn't work.

 

[Gidoza]

*Shrug* In my experience, 1 or 2 units is almost always enough to protect a CS with only a bit of good positioning - barbarian hordes or better. I don't play on Deity, but Emperor or Immortal are normal, and AI armies are a pushover. Where are these 100-some units assaulting the CS? I generally haven't seen this, and when I have, it's surprising how long a few units can hold off against them.

And no, CS don't just *know* that there are other power Civs out there. That argument can work maybe in the Modern Era, but not in the Ancient Era, when nobody has met anyone, yet. The CS doesn't know, and you don't know, what's happening in North America in 3500 BC when you're in Asia. The most that the CS could ever calculate is the relative strengths of the Civs it has already met - and if you're the only one, then your military might is always 100% and I'm sure they'll be happy to have help against those 3 Barbarian Warriors. Pledge is 100% appropriate for a small weak Civ here.

And OK, sure - we don't want to reward weakness; but the question is about protecting, not strength. If I have two spearmen that fend off a barbarian horde, I have succeeded in protecting a CS much more than some big civ that is far away; the proof is in the pudding: I am effective and trustworthy. Yes, that IS worth a reward.

Meanwhile, while we can be in awe of strength, if someone makes a pledge and fails to come through (when they certainly COULD come through), it should HURT to lose that status. To the extent that I would want to keep units around to help (again - it's hitting the Alert button, not extreme micromanagement here - if this is what is called workaholism now, this is tremendously depressing). Not keeping my pledge? How about lose alliance status, they will not accept diplomats, and no quests for 50 turns, that sounds about fair to me. As it stands, Pledge is a hollow and meaningless feature that just racks up a bonus at the click of a button without meaningful consequences.

EDIT: "Oh, hey, that Civ over there has a really big army, so we respect them and are giving them extra stuff, even though our whole army got killed recently from some Invaders and we were worried about our city falling completely...and they didn't help! But they have the biggest army, so we will reward them, for some reason. Now, that small Civ over there, that actually did something to help us...yeah whatever. Our city would be lost without them, but let's reward the big guy."

My brain is hurting as I type this - it sounds more like tribute, not protection! Give credit where credit is due - strength doesn't mean diddly in a pledge if you don't use it, and breach of trust counts for something.

 

[CrazyG]

Meanwhile, while we can be in awe of strength, if someone makes a pledge and fails to come through (when they certainly COULD come through), it should HURT to lose that status

I will agree with this. If I tribute someone you are protecting, you should either have to war me, or lose a lot of influence

 

[Gidoza]

I will agree with this. If I tribute someone you are protecting, you should either have to war me, or lose a lot of influence

We can add to this the question: what happens when the strongest or two strongest Civs are at war with a city-state? It won't accept protection because your military isn't large enough? (Ahem, I think they'll take help wherever they can get it at that point.) There's an argument to be made that you can get influence points for having a pledge with a CS and killing units owned by someone they're warring. Further to that, it would be interesting if you could kill off units from the enemy of a CS you're protecting without declaring war: you're making clear you're protecting the CS, you won't allow their massacre, and the intruder can declare war on you if they want, because you are playing the role of peacekeeper (it wouldn't make sense for someone who is actually keeping the pledge of protecting to get a warmonger penalty for doing it).

 

[Gidoza]

I will agree with this. If I tribute someone you are protecting, you should either have to war me, or lose a lot of influence

Oh yeah, and the other way this could work or be calculated is that the protection bonus only kicks in if the protector has units nearby...

 

[Gazebo]

Not to put a pin in this balloon, but politicking of that magnitude is not in the AI's best interests. The existing system is flawed but functional.

G

 

[Gidoza]

Not to put a pin in this balloon, but politicking of that magnitude is not in the AI's best interests. The existing system is flawed but functional.

G

I appreciate the acknowledgment that the system is flawed, if nothing else. I'm happy to work on ways of improving the system within the AI's concept of understanding.

For example, here is something that would not confuse the AI but also makes sense: when calculating total military, a CS only considers Civs it has met so far, is not at war with, and who valid for pledging via conditions (so a big Civ that is out of trade range is not only not valid for pledging, but its exclusion enables a smaller Civ that is closer by to offer a pledge).

If you see something wrong with this formulation, please point it out.

 

[Gazebo]

I appreciate the acknowledgment that the system is flawed, if nothing else. I'm happy to work on ways of improving the system within the AI's concept of understanding.

For example, here is something that would not confuse the AI but also makes sense: when calculating total military, a CS only considers Civs it has met so far, is not at war with, and who valid for pledging via conditions (so a big Civ that is out of trade range is not only not valid for pledging, but its exclusion enables a smaller Civ that is closer by to offer a pledge).

If you see something wrong with this formulation, please point it out.

Saying something is 'flawed' wasn't a tacit acknowledgement that it needs to change. The entire game is flawed, but the system as-is works, is clear-cut, isn't heavy on micro, and works for the AI.

G

 

[Gidoza]

Saying something is 'flawed' wasn't a tacit acknowledgement that it needs to change. The entire game is flawed, but the system as-is works, is clear-cut, isn't heavy on micro, and works for the AI.

G

Yes, the entire game is flawed, but this hasn't stopped us from continuously reviewing things and improving them to do the very best with what we have. I am confident that we can do better than what we have in this matter also, without hurting micro, the AI's brain, or by having any lack of clarity.

 

[CrazyG]

Yes, the entire game is flawed, but this hasn't stopped us from continuously reviewing things and improving them to do the very best with what we have. I am confident that we can do better than what we have in this matter also, without hurting micro, the AI's brain, or by having any lack of clarity.

You don't seem to understand. For a very long time, the supply system was similar to the vanilla supply system (and similar to what you have suggested). There was (one of the rare) discussions where almost everyone agreed, and some changes were implenented. Its still a fairly new system, so if you have a specific suggestion to improve (as an example, maybe terracotta army provides too much supply) by all means suggest it and we can discuss if the change makes the system better

However, throw out the entire system isn't a valid suggestion, its already gotten more discussion that it is really worth. Supply isn't intended to be a massive limits on your military size, you shouldn't constantly be at your supply limit.