1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[Tuning] World Congress Resolutions

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by lunker, Jan 23, 2018.

  1. lunker

    lunker Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    268
    I wanted to open up discussion about the World Congress, since I heard it was one of the last things on the agenda. I'm going to be using the same format as stalker0's topics, since that seems to be what we're familiar with. In a few days (or if we reach a consensus here) I’ll open a topic about Industrial/Modern Era resolutions.

    A - Well balanced for the most part.
    C - Almost there, could use some tuning.
    F - Needs tuning or rework.


    Renaissance Era Resolutions:


    Ban Luxury

    (A) - Can be used to deny gold, monopolies, and corporations. Moderate voting priority makes this a realistic proposal to pass against a target civ.


    Casus Belli

    (A) - Can help a warmonger delay the inevitable mass denouncing. It's suitably controversial and can help you get into a network of friends.


    City-State Sanctions

    (C) - Can really hurt Germany and be somewhat impactful against Statecraft and Freedom. The warmonger penalty I don't find to be too relevant since I don't see the AI directly declaring and capturing CS. I also find it draws way too much attention compared to what it does.

    I think all that's needed is for the voting priority to be adjusted.


    Cultural Heritage Sites

    (A) - Can help a wonder-civ snowball, but also tends to unite others against that civ.


    Endowment for the Arts

    (F) - This resolution is all over the place.

    1. It hurts science civs and helps tourism civs.
    2. Gives a large boost to production for civs below the global average Score.
    3. Gives a large boost to culture for civs below the global average Score.
    4. Boosts scale with the leader's Score.

    It's always weird whenever this resolution is on the table. Does the increased GA/GW/GM outweigh the production and culture bonus for other civs? Will smaller civs risk helping a tourism civ win faster? Since the resolution is Score-based there are also situations where powerful civs with low scores can reap the benefits. I've also had situations where I was balefully behind on culture, but at the same time could not make use of this resolution as a catch-up mechanic.

    I do like how this resolution can put world leaders and small civs on the same page, and I'm not against having multifaceted resolutions either. Makes for some interesting politics.

    I'd say remove the production bonus and tie the bonus to policies instead of score.


    Global Peace Accords

    (C) - This resolution is supposed to keep the peace, but can sometimes result in everyone going to war with each other. You could argue that that is historically appropriate, but for gameplay purposes it makes the resolution a bit of a wild card. Also the increased maintenance for armies doesn't do much to army size, I find.

    Since we have the Supply mechanic now, maybe we could have this policy lower the max instead. This way the resolution will guarantee smaller armies whether or not the peace gambit works out or not.

    Suggestions:
    - Linear scalar. Smallest army - 0% decrease. Largest army - e.g. 25%.
    - above suggestion may be human favoured...


    Natural Heritage Sites

    (F?) - Hardly does a thing and the AI doesn't seem to care about it either. Makes for a good resolution if you don't want to upset other civs though.


    Open Door – Economics

    (A) – Same opinion as Ban Luxury, can target civs with moderate success. I don’t think the tech requirement is necessary.


    Sanction

    (C) - Can deny trade routes to/from a civ and reduces warmonger penalty against them. I find that these bonuses are not dire enough to warrant neutral civs to vote against this so vehemently. Since all the additions to trade routes, I think this policy only needs a minor vote priority adjustment.


    Scholars in Residence

    (A) - A good catchup mechanic for tech. Also rewards civs who invested in CS alliances.

    - Suggestions: decrease 50% max to 30%


    Treasure Fleet

    (A) - Can give good bonuses if you pass this and have good production. Favours wide. No complaints here.


    World Religion

    (A) – Impactful, controversial, interesting – no changes needed.


    World Science Initiative

    (F) - Same as Endowment for the Arts.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    General Comments:

    I find early game congress to be lacking in some neutral flavoured resolutions. In most of my games I'm never quite sure what to propose in the early game (except for when I can secure World Religion), as there are many polarizing resolutions which can be bad if you don't want to make enemies. In this way you are sort of "punished" for putting your resources into getting host/proposing seat early. Though I suppose I have some usual go-to's for avoiding this (City State Sanction, Natural Heritage Sites)
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
    IcyAngel likes this.
  2. Galbias

    Galbias Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2016
    Messages:
    488
    Agreed with most things. Especially City-State Sanctions (it always confuses me how heavily the AIs like to bandwagon this) and Endowment/Initiative. Endowment/Initiative are particularly weird in that both tend to be fairly popular with the AIs despite being mutually exclusive, so oftentimes whichever is proposed first will usually pass and stay there forever. I like the ability to push the world slightly more towards Science or Culture that it provides, but the Score element is kind of weird since Score tilts so, so heavily towards civs that go Wide compared to Tall. It just feels a bit on the loose side, idk.

    I'd honestly be fine with Endowment/Initiative both getting cut down to only the Great People bonus/penalty, or if anyone has any better ideas.

    Worth noting that the recent changes to resistance/warmonger fervor are probably going to increase the value of both Global Peace Accords and Casus Belli significantly.

    Natural Heritage Sites is a bit boring because the effect is relatively small (12 yields per Natural Wonder tile, games where you have more than one are very rare in my experience), but a minor advantage is still an advantage. Could make it 1 of each yield with standard Era scaling but I don't think it's terribly necessary.
     
    lunker likes this.
  3. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,831
    Location:
    Beijing
    I think scholars in residence is way too strong myself. Its nice to help civs who are behind, but the discount is too large in my opinion.

    Another layer of importance when tuning these is how the AI reacts. For example, I've seen AI support both Casus Belli and Global Peace Accords on multiple occasions. This includes civs like Zulu or Mongolia

    Another proposal that is always popular (I don't see it in this list) is the one that boost great person tiles yields. All AI always support it. I suppose all civs have some great person tiles at this point, however you really shouldn't support this if you have 1 academy, meanwhile I have 10+ great person tiles.
     
    lunker and Owlbebach like this.
  4. Infixo

    Infixo Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,592
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warsaw
    World Religion is like the 1st resolution that AI puts on the table, given the chance. And it keeps repeating until a religion is chosen. Nothing else matters. It kind of breaks entire WC component for me.
     
  5. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    The AI scoring method for WC is so stupidly written that it's a wonder it makes any sense at all.

    G
     
    Edaka likes this.
  6. Infixo

    Infixo Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,592
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warsaw
    Global Peace Accords. I like the idea of lowering supply cap also. AI has no gold problems, so this resolution is almost useless. Lower supply might force them to actually disband some units. I would go for linear scaler. Smallest army - 0% decrease. Largest army - e.g. 25%.

    Arts/Science - absolutely agree to change score into something more close to the actual situation. E.g. techs/policies or part of score that is derived from that.
     
    Txurce and lunker like this.
  7. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,249
    The funny thing about sanctions is that you would think at first that putting sanctions on the top civ would be a great way to take it down a notch. But since trade routes with the big civ is often a strong rubberband its actually one of the worst things you can do.

    One game I considered sanctioning myself (I don't know if that is actually possible), just to ensure people couldn't trade with me and rubberband, while I went order with sweet triple internal trade routes.

    Natural Heritage - I wouldn't mind a small bump here myself. I don't mind a few weaker safe policies, but this one is just a littttle too dull.
     
    IcyAngel and phantomaxl1207 like this.
  8. lunker

    lunker Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    268
    I find that Scholars In Residence isn't too bad most of the time, since it scales with CS alliances (5% per). I do agree that 50% is too much though. Come to think of it, I've used the 50% myself to catch up to the leading tech civs, even though I was top dog in my game. I think a bump down to 30% and the resolution will be sitting pretty.

    Also, Historical Landmarks is going to be in the next topic (Industrial/Modern), since it unlocks at Archaeology.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2018
  9. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,867
    Would it be possible to forbid a civ to spam a rejected resolution ?
    In MP, the first player is an AI (contrary to SP), and the AI was spamming "World religion" with no chances of success, preventing me from ever proposing MY religion as a world religion.

    (Well, the best solution would be to allow to have multiple "world religion resolution" proposed at the same time, with only the one that pass with the most votes being enabled, but it probably needs a lot of new code, whereas a "not able to propose EXACTLY the same resolution two times in a row" seems easier to code)
     
  10. Grabbl

    Grabbl Prince

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    429
    I don't know if it's just coincidence, but since the January patches, I feel that AI acts more reasonable for City State Sanctions, I've had many games without it being proposed (in contrast to before when it got proposed almost every session when not yet passed. So, AI logic seems better in that case now. But I'm still a bit reluctant to this resolution as it's the only one which basically negates a civ's unique component completely (Germany's). For that, I would be in favour of giving it a softer impact, like reduced yields from city state trade routes, or still being able to trade with allied city states (or even -1 WC vote per city state trade route, but that's not possible probably).

    Lower unit cap for Peace accords would be great indeed, also I like the idea of tying the arts/ science bonus to number of policies/techs instead of score.

    Scholars in residence is in a good place, I think, it's good that it is relevant, and you can't use it to get ahead. On the other side, its a bit exploitable by not finishing tech for example (which the AI doesn't do, I think), so a reduction in the cap for the city state scaling would be ok, I guess.
     
  11. MorphBer

    MorphBer Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2017
    Messages:
    180
    Change gold to supply cap reduction sounds like a great Idea.

    Changing score component to number of Policys/techs makes sense in what the resolutions is intended to do and balances wide vs tall.
     
  12. Gidoza

    Gidoza Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,160
    I like the possibility of multiple religions/ideologies/other stuff being proposed at the same time. It sounds reasonable. Wouldn't it also be additionally useful if in SP the player didn't always get first choice at proposal, but if it was randomize who went first?
     
  13. Workerspam

    Workerspam Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2016
    Messages:
    324
    My concern with this solution is it sounds like it is potentially exploitable by the player. My sense is the AI builds up to (and sometimes over) their military cap most of the time. As the player I'm often beneath my cap. AI will have to delete units or suffer growth/production penalties that I will many times avoid without doing a thing.

    I think you could simply raise the maintenance penalty if you want to add more teeth to the resolution. You could also add a combat penalty when fighting in foreign lands but I think that's overkill and missing the purpose of the resolution; I don't believe the resolution should make actual fighting more difficult but rather make preparing and waging war more costly, both economically and diplomatically.
     
    IcyAngel likes this.
  14. Infixo

    Infixo Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,592
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warsaw
    Well that is exactly the idea behind any "peace" related resolutions. To actually decrease the firepower. Starting with Versailles Treaty, SALT and START, and dozens of others.
     
  15. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock

    Not possible.

    G
     
  16. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    @Infixo you're welcome to tinker with the WC resolution logic - it's pretty arcane stuff, though, so beware.

    G
     
  17. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,125
    I think Endowment for the Arts and World Science Initiative need to be split into 2 different resolutions each. Turn it into something like:

    Endowment for the Arts: Increases generation of Great Writers, Artists, and Musicians by 33%. Decreases generation of Great Scientists, Engineers, and Merchants by 33%
    World Science Initiative: Increases generation of Great Scientists, Engineers, and Merchants by 33%. Decreases generation of Great Writers, Artists, and Musicians by 33%
    Cultural Exchange (or some other appropriate name): Civilizations with unlocked policies below the global average will receive a boost to Production and Culture anywhere from 10-30%
    Scientific Outreach (or some other appropriate name): Civilizations with unlocked technologies below the global average will receive a boost to Food and Science anywhere from 10-30%

    I think the AI is rightly wary of the Sanction proposal. It has huge effects on the ability of the target of the sanction to generate tourism as well as huge effects on all other AIs ability to gain tourism on the target. It only makes sense to vote FOR a sanction against a civ if you either fear them militarily or fear them tourism-wise. Otherwise you might want to gain tourism on trade routes to them or the trade route modifier, you might want lucrative trade routes to them, you might want science/culture from trade routes to them if they are ahead of you, and you might want the passive gold gained from them sending trade routes your way. It seems like it should only get passed if the target is universally hated (like a warmonger) or is really running away with tourism and might soon win.

    I think I agree with your analysis everywhere else, especially improving natural heritage sites and reducing scholars in residence CS ally bonus a bit.
     
  18. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,938
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    You seem to imply that this code was made by Sid himself in a Spectrum.
     
  19. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    More like a horde of angry chimps accidentally typing out Hamlet...and also the World Congress AI.

    G
     
    IcyAngel and Ziad like this.
  20. Infixo

    Infixo Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,592
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warsaw

Share This Page