Vox Populi Congress Proposal Workshop

[usadefcon1]

It feels like the optimum way to play then would be to infinitely drop into negative gold, buying tons of units and buildings early and starting the steam roll.

To be fair that's what EVERY nation does in real life now. The real life penalty is inflation/ hyperinflation, and I think that would probably be a stretch to model in the game.

 

[Stalker0]

So one thing PAD is considering here, and I think its important to consider on a more general basis, is "how multiplayer friendly do we want all civs to be?"

For example, the current Dutch UA is pretty fun, but its quite true its very poor for an MP standpoint. Is the goal to make all civs MP worthy...or do we accept that a certain portion of civs are not going to be MP compatible and that's ok (as long as there is a good list of civs that are).

If we have a civ whose UA we don't like and we want to change it anyway, than be all means factor in MP in the discussion if you can. But when we have a good UA that we do like (such as the Dutch one), that's when this question comes up.

 

[ma_kuh]

I think if there's going to be a multiplayer component to a UA, there should be at least a self-manageable fallback that is around the same power.

So Morocco, as a related example, relies on your neighbors not DOWing you and denying you trade routes. But you can also target CS with your personal routes; there's a fallback. Netherlands doesn't even get the fallback of being able to settle the unique luxury themselves: they HAVE to import it (and CS will share a lot of luxuries, which means just allying everyone isn't really a complete solution). So in this case I think the MP concern is significant enough to take action.

And that's ignoring that you can ever get a monopoly, which is even more of a disparity between MP and SP.

 

[pineappledan]

As I said in the first post, I think the only 2 standouts for being bad MP civs are Dutch and India, and India is already being changed to something much more viable for MP. So that only leaves Netherlands.

Some things I am still trying to figure out:
Maybe they SHOULD have the science penalty?

If you have zero or negative and negative GPT, maybe instead of going further into the hole, you do have your negative converted to ?​

Maybe the Dutch should have a debt ceiling?

This is how it works IRL anyways. If a nation has too much debt to income then their interest rate would climb and borrowing money becomes more expensive. The US government has formalized this into a debt ceiling, where congress has imposed a limit on the amount of money the US can borrow as a safeguard against devaluing American currency, and keeping the perception of the US dollar as a "safe" currency for global trade.​

Maybe they can only take out 500 of debt, scaling with era, and the penalty only comes into effect at that point?​

This actually lends itself well to implementation, and I think would be easy to code. The debt mechanic would in effect be a UI trick. You start the game with a 500 float, and if you go over it you start gaining/losing gold. Then on era change you are given +500 more float and the UI's "zero gold" anchor jumps up by another 500. The zero gold floor still exists, and functions the same as it does now, it's just further down.​

 

[ma_kuh]

I think it needs a cap, definitely. Otherwise of course infinitely scaling your negative gold has no impact.

One very specific case would be the fastest triple archer rush in the game, since you could buy the slingers faster, and then the archer upgrade would be cheaper than buying the archer outright. So something that prevents that would be ideal.

Maybe the gold cap scales with cities in addition to era? 50g/city, era scaling, and an extra 50g, era scaling, for the capital? Also, please be sure to scale the float gold with game speed, if possible.


Also, you can have a different penalty than science as their "unique overdraft cost", so they don't slow down on tech while borrowing, but they do slow down on something else (culture, faith? eh, maybe those aren't good trades...).

 

[usadefcon1]

As I said in the first post, I think the only 2 standouts for being bad MP civs are Dutch and India, and India is already being changed to something much more viable for MP. So that only leaves India.

Some things I am still trying to figure out:
Maybe they SHOULD have the science penalty?

If you have zero or negative and negative GPT, maybe instead of going further into the hole, you do have your negative converted to ?​

Maybe the Dutch should have a debt ceiling?

This is how it works IRL anyways. If a nation has too much debt to income then their interest rate would climb and borrowing money becomes more expensive. The US government has formalized this into a debt ceiling, where congress has imposed a limit on the amount of money the US can borrow as a safeguard against devaluing American currency, and keeping the perception of the US dollar as a "safe" currency for global trade.​

Maybe they can only take out 500 of debt, scaling with era, and the penalty only comes into effect at that point?​

This actually lends itself well to implementation, and I think would be easy to code. The debt mechanic would in effect be a UI trick. You start the game with a 500 float, and if you go over it you start gaining/losing gold. Then on era change you are given +500 more float and the UI jumps up by 500. The zero gold floor still exists, and functions the same as it does now, it's just further down.​

In real life, the amount of debt to income allowed by the market is a function of how many resources the nation controls. (In the case of present day United States that resource is oil).

That might make for interesting Dutch gameplay: the more resources it controls the more in debt it can go without penalty.

If the Dutch were in the red and suddenly lose control of some of those resources... Hyperinflation. Would make for fun gameplay.

 

[Stalker0]

As I said in the first post, I think the only 2 standouts for being bad MP civs are Dutch and India, and India is already being changed to something much more viable for MP. So that only leaves India.

Some things I am still trying to figure out:
Maybe they SHOULD have the science penalty?

If you have zero or negative and negative GPT, maybe instead of going further into the hole, you do have your negative converted to ?​

Maybe the Dutch should have a debt ceiling?

This is how it works IRL anyways. If a nation has too much debt to income then their interest rate would climb and borrowing money becomes more expensive. The US government has formalized this into a debt ceiling, where congress has imposed a limit on the amount of money the US can borrow as a safeguard against devaluing American currency, and keeping the perception of the US dollar as a "safe" currency for global trade.​

Maybe they can only take out 500 of debt, scaling with era, and the penalty only comes into effect at that point?​

This actually lends itself well to implementation, and I think would be easy to code. The debt mechanic would in effect be a UI trick. You start the game with a 500 float, and if you go over it you start gaining/losing gold. Then on era change you are given +500 more float and the UI jumps up by 500. The zero gold floor still exists, and functions the same as it does now, it's just further down.​

Before we dig in to this brand new mechanic..... do we want that kind of "division" in the Dutch play?

You have a mechanic to encourage them to save money....do we really want to also pair it with a mechanic to blow money as quickly as possible? Seems like two mechanics that are going to fight each other for space. The getting interest on your saved money I think already has a lot of strategically interesting things you can do with it in terms of how you plan your economy (though 2% is likely too low, probably needs to be more like 5 even 10% to really hit a worthy threshold).

 

[Captain Carrot]

There are a few problems with the Dutch UA, and I wondered if we could talk about it:

Current UA: Dutch East India Company

+3 Culture and Gold for each different Luxury Resource you import or export from/to other Civilizations and City-States, scaling with Era.​

Can import duplicate Resources, and Major Civilization imports count towards Monopolies.​

​

First off, I really like this UA. It breaks rules so the Dutch can do things that other civs simply can't, and it provides unique incentives. Fantastic.

The problems I have with it are:

1. The name is terrible.​

It has the word "Dutch" in it, which is redundant. It's like Calling America's UA "American Manifest Destiny".​

There is already a national wonder called "East India Company". I think at minimum either the Dutch UA or the national wonder needs to have a name change.​

2. It's not multiplayer compatible.​

There are some civs that provide too much counter-play, exposing you to the whims of other players. The UA's economic engine is dependent on other players being willing to trade with you at all, putting you at the mercy of human players, who are much more willing to coordinate and gang up.​

India also had this problem, because coordinated human players can just spread on him and shut his passive pressure abilities off before they can get going. A change to that was approved last congress, so that just leaves the Dutch.​

​

Here's the alternative UA that I came up with:

Wisselbanken
Gains Gold equal to 2% of total Gold reserves each turn. Can enter into debt at a 2% Gold Interest Rate
15% of the Gold spent to purchase Units or invest in Buildings is converted into Golden Age Points.

This UA allows the Dutch to have negative gold, which they have to pay off with interest. Interest is treated in the same way as building or unit maintenance.
This also makes the Dutch immune to the Science penalty for having no gold reserves. When civs have 0 Gold and negative GPT, they lose 1 for each negative they would have lost. Instead, the Dutch simply gofurther into negative gold. They always have the ability to pay, even if they have no to pay with.
I imagine this would create some very interesting strategies, because you are basically not limited by gold reserves, only gold income. For instance, you could disband your entire army to reduce maintenance costs, and then purchase them back again if a war ever breaks out, because you have effectively limitless ability to put new units on the map. You could enter into debt very early to buy a turn 1 worker or invest in your first few buildings.

The Dutch UA basically has no interactions with the UU or UI. Their whole kit is quite disjointed, so it's easy to swap one part out without having to change the others. Actually, the UA's dependence on good AI relations had a bit of countersynergy with how aggressive their UU is, so I think that this change would also make a Dutch playstyle slightly more coherent.
As I said I really like the current Dutch UA, but I just don’t see how it’s workable if VP wants to have multiplayer as a goal. The UA is per text for a modmod.

Ah, I'm flattered that the concern I raised is being addressed. However, as I wrote in the monopoly proposal thread...
...this is where I would quote my post, but it's not there? I guess something went wrong with the forum or my browser - I think I may have posted it from mobile? Or maybe I'm just going crazy and I just imagined myself posting that.

Anyway, what I (wanted to) said back then was that I completely forgot about the yields on unique luxury imports/exports. At the moment of writing my first (only) post in that thread, I thought that the duplicate imports and imported monopolies was the whole UA, and that part indeed just never worked in my only mp game with the Netherlands present. The culture and gold are fine, I think. A player can utilise a diplomatic situation to make use of it - if a warmonger has nobody to trade resources with but William, well, giving yields to another and getting paid for it can be better than getting nothing, if the price is right. Even in regular trades, we only really traded stuff with the Dutch player at a slightly better price than to anyone else (unless it was the last one he needed to get the monopoly, then we just didn't). So compared to a trade with another player, I get a bit more gold, he loses a bit more gold (or vice versa) and he gets a bit of culture. And if I think he intends to resell it, well that's fine, he won't get the culture a second time and will have to sell it for lower than I would. Unless he's winning, of course - but at that point nobody would trade with him fairly no matter what Civ he had. We never did reach the end-game then, because of a recurring crash (that was a long time ago though, so it was probably fixed by now), so I can't comment on how well it works close to a victory (not at all, probably) but I imagine that it just requires you to make an effort to not (visibly) win too much until you're ready for the final stretch.

In my opinion it's fine that some civs are fundamentally a bit weaker in multiplayer (even if my earlier post gave off a different impression because I forgot a mechanic like an idiot), because it encourages you to make use of the infinitely more complex human-to-human diplomacy to counter them countering you. Also in that game, we agreed to not give open borders to Austria, so she would only be able to marry some CS (that was before the nerf), but then as I warred another player with a second front from a CS, he did give OB to Austria, so she could steal the alliance and free up his troops. Of course, not every game will provide such situations for the player to exploit, but that's part of the charm of multiplayer - nothing is really certain. And of course not every player would enjoy shenanigans like this, while still wanting to play multiplayer, so maybe there really is a reason to change it, but speaking for my group, we're mostly fine the way things are.


That said, I think the interest UA is very interesting, and would love to play around with it, whether on the Netherlands, or on a custom civ. I agree about it fitting better with the Sea Beggar - although, to mention that game again, the Dutch player once successfully threatened his sister with a "trade me silver or I'll take your fleet" (that only happened once though, because stealthily moving 7 ships is kinda hard). As for the name, couldn't we just do the same thing as we did to Denmark and make it Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie? I imagine it's also more understandable to the average English-speaker than Mycel Hæþen Here.

 

[Captain Carrot]

2% is likely too low, probably needs to be more like 5 even 10% to really hit a worthy threshold

Zurich in Unique City-States gives 2%, and I remember it going absolutely crazy if you save up just a bit. That game was a long time ago, and I did have some unbalanced mods on, but at some point in late Medieval I found myself being able to invest in every building (4 cities, tradition) and regularly upgrade units without losing money, while still having a couple thousands in the bank for a future wonder rush or something. It ended up being capped at 20/era (I think) to make it more in line with other UCS abilities. I think that level of power is fine for a UA, without a cap, but higher numbers scare me. But hey, wouldn't be the first time we overbuffed something during a rework, and we can lower it next Congress if such a proposal passes.

 

[pineappledan]

Before we dig in to this brand new mechanic..... do we want that kind of "division" in the Dutch play?

You have a mechanic to encourage them to save money....do we really want to also pair it with a mechanic to blow money as quickly as possible? Seems like two mechanics that are going to fight each other for space. The getting interest on your saved money I think already has a lot of strategically interesting things you can do with it in terms of how you plan your economy (though 2% is likely too low, probably needs to be more like 5 even 10% to really hit a worthy threshold).

If the UA only has an active component when you're in negative gold then that doesn't seem very fun.

That's also why I want to add a yield conversion like on the bank to the UA. That way you are encouraged to save and encouraged to spend. If only 1 was encouraged I think the Dutch would feel lopsided.

The 2% is actually fairly considerable. You get +1 GPT just for having 50 in the bank, that's pretty decent. But by itself that doesn't open up many interesting strategies and I didn't want it to become an overriding concern. hoarding gold for its own sake just so you can have more gold, which I guess you just proceed to hoard more of. That is too circular; it needs an off-ramp.

Ah, I'm flattered that the concern I raised is being addressed. However, as I wrote in the monopoly proposal thread...

I had been thinking about the problem with the Dutch UA before you mentioned it, but it was one more voice that made me feel more confident in posting this.

Even your MP example seems forgiving. If I tried to play the Dutch with my friends they would just refuse to trade with me because turning off another player's UA is funny.
Even in your example, you and your friends "priced in" the fact that the Dutch UA gives them extra stuff for trading. You buffered trade deals by the amount his UA would reward him via yields external to the deal. The AI has been coded to do this too, so this isn't just a human player thing, but I wonder how healthy it is for balance? Other players don't have any opportunity to 'cushion' Babylon's UA, or anyone else's like that. There are no levers for other players to pull that mitigate the power of your UA like how Netherlands is forced to discount his trade deals just so other players will allow them to go through. I guess it's unique in that respect, but unique in a way that doesn't seem entirely good.

 

[Legen]

I think if there's going to be a multiplayer component to a UA, there should be at least a self-manageable fallback that is around the same power.

We could think of some. Here's my first attempt:

• "Can export Luxury Resources to City-States."
  • City-states are willing to pay some gold per turn comparable to how much a typical major AI player (without a WLTKD request) would.
  • Possibly needed: each City-State will import only one luxury at a time from the Dutch.
  • Exporting luxuries this way counts towards the UA's culture and gold generation.
  • Limits how much other human players can pressure the Dutch player to lower prices, since they are competing with City-States for that luxury.
  • Preliminary UI concept:
    • An additional option on the City-State screen, similar to Austria's marriage option, telling how much the city-state will pay per turn for a luxury.
    • Selecting this option opens a Luxury list similar to the one on the World Congress's "Ban Luxury" proposal, with the Luxuries you currently control. Selecting a luxury from this list will export the chosen Luxury to the City-State.

 

[Stalker0]

If the UA only has an active component when you're in negative gold then that doesn't seem very fun.

That's why to me its gold saving that is the primary UA, and the debt that is the possible "vestigial" ability.

That is too circular; it needs an off-ramp.

And that is the strategic decision turn after turn, when do I off ramp? Do I keep saving for even more gold, do I spend it now for infrastructure that will also help me later? How much do I hoard and when I do spend, that is the strategic decision you are adding to the game.

 

[CppMaster]

We could think of some. Here's my first attempt:

• "Can export Luxury Resources to City-States."
  • City-states are willing to pay some gold per turn comparable to how much a typical major AI player (without a WLTKD request) would.
  • Possibly needed: each City-State will import only one luxury at a time from the Dutch.
  • Exporting luxuries this way counts towards the UA's culture and gold generation.
  • Limits how much other human players can pressure the Dutch player to lower prices, since they are competing with City-States for that luxury.
  • Preliminary UI concept:
    • An additional option on the City-State screen, similar to Austria's marriage option, telling how much the city-state will pay per turn for a luxury.
    • Selecting this option opens a Luxury list similar to the one on the World Congress's "Ban Luxury" proposal, with the Luxuries you currently control. Selecting a luxury from this list will export the chosen Luxury to the City-State.

This is interesting and it solves the UA! Nice!

 

[Kis121]

I don't know if anyone ever suggest this but I think it would be cool if naval units where able to pillage coasts like in civ 6. Maybe limit it to only be able to if the tile doesn't have any land military unit on top. I think this would make naval power more impactful and also makes more sense.

 

[Anarcomu]

Change the Monopoly/buying-multiple-luxury thing with the possibility to "sell luxury" to city state, for a per-turn influence boost. This way you can always benefit from trading your luxuries away, and the bonus influence ease you capacity to import new resources throught CS. It does, however, bring an early diplomatic component to them.

Details :

• Add a new interface when trading with CS :
  • Under "Send gift", add a "Trade luxury";
  • It leads to a list of available luxuries you have for trade;
  • Deal last a number of turn, the same as regular trading with player;
  • + 1-2/turn, one sell at a time per CS, no era scaling
  • It seems logical but I'll precise anyway : this count as an export for the other part of the UA

Rational :

• This idea isn't to make Netherlands diplo-focused. A scaling factor would give too much in the late game.
• It would allow export of luxuries without the need for Major, making it more reliable in MP.
• Its purpose is mainly to synergies with the other part of the UA.
• That early influence would be enough to secure nearby CS in the early game, allowing for more imported luxuries.
• It wouldn't really change the state of end game when are in the hundreds.

It would fully replace the Monopoly part of the UA. It is already a bonus I never use, because you rarely can buy a monopoly anyway, or it cost a hell lot of gold.

EDIT : Just saw Legen's proposal, we have similar ideas.

 

[pineappledan]

Change the Monopoly/buying-multiple-luxury thing with the possibility to "sell luxury" to city state, for a per-turn influence boost. This way you can always benefit from trading your luxuries away, and the bonus influence ease you capacity to import new resources throught CS. It does, however, bring an early diplomatic component to them.

I like this. @Legen ‘s idea would also work, but I think keeping CS as giving influence is cleaner. It’s more consistent with other CS interactions, and gives a difference in kind from major civ trades.

That certainly sounds like a good escape valve for the ability. Even at 1 per turn, that’s pretty competitive with some of the deals nertherlands gets with major civs already, so probably don’t want to go above that. If you consider the exchange rate for influence to gold it’s not actually too bad.

Certainly a more conservative change than my idea. I just think the idea of a debt mechanic is interesting

 

[Anarcomu]

Regarding the removal of the monopoly part, I'd like to know the experience of other players. I have personally never been able, nor willing to try to actually get a monopoly through UA. Have someone been able to do so, and have it been a game changer when doing so ? Like securing a specific corporation or something.

 

[pineappledan]

Personally I have always thought it was kind of weird that there are only 2 civs out of 43 that have bonuses related to monopolies, and they are Netherlands and Indonesia. Netherlands' UA is "East India Company", which is the entity that literally owned Indonesia as a colonial fief so they could extract pepper and cloves and stuff and sell it back to Europe. So the only 2 monopoly civs are direct references to the same place with the same resources in more or less the same timeframe.

In other words we have two entire civs designed around a single geographic and historical factoid.

 

[Anarcomu]

In term of gameplay, do you think the Dutch loose anything by removing their monopoly ability ? I personally don't, so I see no problem removing a complex and underused UA part.
It would eliminate that overlap too.

 

[ma_kuh]

I don't know if it's worth the extra text and coding, but you could have each monopoly increase the influence by +1 (so after your first monopoly it's +2, etc.), if there was a desire to keep around some flavor of monopolies.

Also, it's a little weird that the UA requires you to specifically trade the luxuries, rather than just owning copies like God of Festivals. That seems like it would also be a low-effort way to give the UA some personal agency.

So:

+3 Culture and Gold for each different Luxury Resource you own, import or export.