Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
His proposal is in the post you quoted.
Vox Populi Congress Proposal Workshop
- Thread starter Recursive
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vp congress
I feel the difference is that SS improves a bad start, sea piles on already good start.
That said, SS has certainly had nerf ideas, though most of those have been rejected in proposals. I am not opposed to some look at SS as well.
I would want to do it seperate, though we can put in a clause of "if Proposal X is approved, please do Y" to help them play better together, but I think changing a civ and changing a religious belief is certainly something that should be seperate.
pineappledan
Deity
Why, then, is the target Spain’s kit, and not her flavours? You’re right that she is geared much more expansionist right now than strictly warmongering, so why not adjust her AI biases to accommodate that?
I’m against this. Both of these functionally translate into flat % combat modifiers against other civs pretty much all of the time, indistinguishable from giving all Spanish units flat % combat modifiers directly. It is the single most basic, conventional combat bonus, a pure steroid that offers no decisions and opens no new playstyles to Spain.
As you say, a combat bonus Vs other religions is a carbon copy of DotF and Crusader. They aren’t interesting bonuses there either, but at least on beliefs and policies these straightforward bonuses offer a tradeoff between themselves and alternative policy/belief choices. Adding another bonus Vs religion to Spain waters down both these beliefs.
Also yes, a combat bonus within X tiles of a city following your religion has already been removed from VP because of the computation involved. It was replaced with a bonus for being on a tile owned by a city following your religion (See Orthodoxy reformation belief in my more beliefs mod).
Inquisition already lowers the cost of inquisitors by 33%. Giving free ones on top of that is redundant.
This is reminiscent of an idea I had for a new enhancer belief:
Doctrine of Discovery
Missionaries gain +2 Vision and generate
when revealing tiles. Newly conquered cities gain 5000 of your religious pressure when captured.I don’t think you should submit a change like this while simultaneously trying to change everything else about spies. If spies turn out to be more “mobile” in the next iteration then this change deprives players of a potential strategic decision, and you might end up having to revert. I agree that as spies are right now, they move around slowly enough and there are too few incentives to put them anywhere other than a CS or a capital, so heavy pressure in 1 city isn’t enough of a carrot.
An alternative: what if a spy in a city tripled your existing pressure against that city, instead of giving a flat amount? Then you could combine it with trade routes and passive pressure modifiers.
Last edited:
I agree that its best to hold on this one till we see how the espionage shakes out.
One of the major differences with my proposal for Spain's UA is that it applies to naval units. Having the faith-buy navy suggests some pull in that direction, so I think it would be good to support it. If that means adding Naval to DotF and Crusader instead... maybe that's the better move.
Using "bonus for being on a tile owned by a city following your religion" sounds like it would cover basically the same case I'm trying to cover, so that seems like a fine alternative (although it won't help ocean battles). The decision I'm trying to push is that you should try to flip a border town before invading. For half of the civs this might be trivial but for Founders it represents doubling-down on upsetting them. I'll concede the +15% baseline CS against other-religion civs is more like a permanent bonus. I was also trying to keep it different from Homeland Defender, but in practice it's pretty similar too.
As for the Inquisitor changes, I think splitting that off of Spain's UA gives more design (and text) space for the civ to do cool things, and the Inquisition belief is a little lackluster. I don't see -33% cost as conflicting with free Inquisitors on conquest.
As I mentioned in my post, I think the pattern of liberating cities that already have your religion is a closer analog for the Reconquista than what currently exists in the UA. The Inquisition, though iconic for Spain, can better be represented by the belief itself, which is also a reflection that it wasn't solely a Spanish construct.
How about these for alternative "interesting" combat bonuses that Spain could have:
- Units on a tile owned by a city following your religion get +10% flanking bonus.
- Missionaries and Inquisitors gain Leadership.
Using "bonus for being on a tile owned by a city following your religion" sounds like it would cover basically the same case I'm trying to cover, so that seems like a fine alternative (although it won't help ocean battles). The decision I'm trying to push is that you should try to flip a border town before invading. For half of the civs this might be trivial but for Founders it represents doubling-down on upsetting them. I'll concede the +15% baseline CS against other-religion civs is more like a permanent bonus. I was also trying to keep it different from Homeland Defender, but in practice it's pretty similar too.
As for the Inquisitor changes, I think splitting that off of Spain's UA gives more design (and text) space for the civ to do cool things, and the Inquisition belief is a little lackluster. I don't see -33% cost as conflicting with free Inquisitors on conquest.
As I mentioned in my post, I think the pattern of liberating cities that already have your religion is a closer analog for the Reconquista than what currently exists in the UA. The Inquisition, though iconic for Spain, can better be represented by the belief itself, which is also a reflection that it wasn't solely a Spanish construct.
How about these for alternative "interesting" combat bonuses that Spain could have:
- Units on a tile owned by a city following your religion get +10% flanking bonus.
- Missionaries and Inquisitors gain Leadership.
Biggest issue I see with this is that your missionaries may just turn into barbarian lunchmeat. Now if your missionaries were immune from barb capture THAT could be interesting.Doctrine of Discovery
Missionaries gain +2 Vision and generateAnd
The conquered cities benefit is certainly useful but doesn't seem thematic at all with the concept of "science and discovery"
Historically accurate. At least they'll keep them around safe and sound back at their camp.
I mean sure, but it also means I would likely never take this belief. What's the point of exploring with missionaries if they just get gobbled up by every barb that comes by? Keep in mind that on continent type maps later exploration has LOTS of barbs.
pineappledan
Deity
This is an enhancer, meaning you would pick this belief around medieval. Long after you have already explored your continent, but before you unlock deep ocean to explore the sea/other landmasses. The place that will give the most yields is exploring the owned land of other civs in that phase (but you will need open borders so your missionaries don’t die). Barbs shouldn’t be a problem except on tiny remote islands.
I assure you, the theme is solid
Discovery doctrine - Wikipedia
In game terms, the doctrine of discovery was a religious justification for declaring non-Christian lands as open to be conquered. They were doing all that conquest to spread Christian civilization to “empty” land (that just so happened to be full of people).
Last edited:
On most communitas maps I play, there are plenty of barbs around the map when you start the age of exploration. Not to mention your new world style maps.
pineappledan
Deity
The most unrevealed tiles would be inside the land of newly met civs and the ocean, where barbs shouldn’t be a main concern. If they were I would sooner add the barb conversion onto this belief than make missionaries immune, since that’s existing code and is a more active component.
Yes the ocean, which is filled with barbarian ships
I'm being sincere, on most maps I play, exploration and barb hunting go hand in hand, barb camps are EVERYWHERE I go that isn't already another civ. I can't see how I would ever use a civilian unit to explore that can't protect itself.
pineappledan
Deity
That’s not my experience on continents map. The sea is usually wide open. One thing that missionary units can do is stack themselves underneath other players’ military units. In that mid game exploration phase, using civilian units as scouts would let you bypass the traffic jams that explorers face. You can use that to avoid barb interactions.
To be honest, needing to protect your missionary-explorer seems fine, were this kind of belief in the game A single skirmisher can pair with it and move about as fast. Not everything needs to be self-sufficient. But I also have mixed feelings about tile-reveal as a trigger to begin with, I just don't find it very fun to delay exploration. Like I already hate that I build caravels to explore the world, but then explorers, moving much slower, lose all that free XP.
If we did that with teh missionaries +2 vision, woudl the missionary get all of the exploration credit or would the skirmisher also get some of reveal? I'm not sure how much better the missionaries vision would be with +2 range.
Also same question but with the caravel
Missionary would have vision 3 I think (1+2), and if you move it first then you should get the credit, skirmisher would get none. Unless end of turn AI moves military first... which would be RIP.
It would be an open question if the vision bonus applied while embarked, if it did I think it's the same situation, if caravel moves first it takes the reveals, otherwise it works fine.
It would be an open question if the vision bonus applied while embarked, if it did I think it's the same situation, if caravel moves first it takes the reveals, otherwise it works fine.
pineappledan
Deity
Missionaries have a base sight range of 1, so it would give a radius of 3. Same as a base scout line unit. I’m unconcerned about missionaries being vulnerable to barbs. They can stack under your own or neutral military units, and as such have movement options that aren’t available to normal scouts. They can also enter foreign lands without open borders for just a penalty instead of being banned outright, and they can expend themselves onto a nearby city if things get too “hot”, so there’s a built-in escape hatch.
Spain has their faith purchase of ships, which is like a combat bonus. I haven’t had an opportunity to try a Spain game and feel if the faith purchases feel reasonable enough to be a real combat edge. They weren’t worth it in earlier versions.
I’m not enthused by this idea that we should just push Spain more and more into the mold of warmonger. We have tons of warmongers, and combat bonuses coming out our ears. Spain has unique faith and settling mechanics; we should push them more in the direction they are already heading.
For instance, I’d be in favor of removing or altering the landmass restriction on conquistador settling.
Last edited:
The point of my proposal was a hopefully low-effort and low-stakes change that didn't require rethinking the civ or its flavors. So to that end I still think getting the free Inquisitors moved to Inquisition is my highest priority, and to give Spain compensation for it.
If they became a "settling" civ, then I feel like they'll run into a lot of the Shoshone problems, where they start making cities but translating that to an actual gameplan becomes difficult. But I'm not against it, in theory. I just thought something simple for now would be nice.
If they became a "settling" civ, then I feel like they'll run into a lot of the Shoshone problems, where they start making cities but translating that to an actual gameplan becomes difficult. But I'm not against it, in theory. I just thought something simple for now would be nice.
Similar threads
