Vox Populi Congress Proposal Workshop

[pineappledan]

12 tiles is not that far away. That radius should already be fully settled by the time Conquistadors unlock. Why keep a limit then?

For flavour. If it doesn’t matter then at the very least it can prevent conquistadors — explorers and adventurers in the new world — from being used to backfill cities in your core.

Maintenance-free was added because there's no use for inquisitors you get from conquering others if they already follow your religion.

Another reason to just axe the inquisitor bonuses entirely. They are complicated, have lots of corner cases, and players don’t seem to like them. It mainly exists for that Spanish Inquisition Reconquista flavor.

Alternatively, new bonus:
Remove: the free inquisitor and all inquisitor bonuses.
Add: capturing a city reduces foreign pressure in that city by 50%.

Functionally identical to the free inquisitor, but no control. Weaker than the current bonus, but Totally straightforward and automatic. Nothing to complain about.
Edit: but then we are back where we were with their old bonus which autoconverted captured cities. The original point was to have Spain use inquisitors. But inquisitors are such an unfun and lame mechanic that players get mad when we remind them they exist. Sucks to suck.

AI does not disband inquisitors. This and the Inquisition belief change need to teach the AI to use inquisitors passively and also disband when they aren't needed.

Seems acceptable. There was discussion of restoring the resistance on inquisitors, which would also require teaching the AI that it can passively station them anyways.

That's kinda the point of its design, and is easy to remember

Yes, that was the intent, but if it is holding Spain back then I think we should consider altering it.

 

[Stalker0]

Edit: but then we are back where we were with their old bonus which autoconverted captured cities. The original point was to have Spain use inquisitors. But inquisitors are such an unfun and lame mechanic that players get mad when we remind them they exist. Sucks to suck.

I don't think that was ever really the problem. The biggest complaint for some was that Spainish cities could not be converted at all, creating an assailable wall of religious power. We removed that a long time ago.

In comparison, auto converted a new conquered city seems like a solid little bonus.

 

[CppMaster]

Do we have a list with out of VP scope changes that there is no point proposing? E.g. Unit stacking.

 

[Anarcomu]

Making a list is out of VP scope

 

[Captain Carrot]

Do we have a list with out of VP scope changes that there is no point proposing? E.g. Unit stacking.

From the Vox Populi Congress Guide (pinned in the Congress subforum):

• The proposal must be in scope for the mod. This will be generously interpreted given that this process is intended to empower the voices of the players, but if you’re asking for something which is impossible, would completely upend the game, requires an infeasible amount of work, or is against the vision of the mod, your proposal will be rejected. For example, a proposal for a 64-bit version of Vox Populi would be rejected.
  
  
• Proposals to change the one unit per tile (1UPT) rule or prevent save scumming by adding randomness when loading savegames are specifically considered out of scope. These will not be changed, the former because it is a core part of the game and the latter because it would prohibit effective debugging of savegames.

 

[CppMaster]

Currently, AI is stubborn when it comes to capitulation. It's better to become a vassal to a much stronger empire instead of losing couple of cities, including the capital and then become a vassal after all the damage is done. The second scenario is likely a game over, so the AI doesn't choose in it's best interest. How can it be fixed? Does AI fails to estimate if it can defend?

 

[Stalker0]

Currently, AI is stubborn when it comes to capitulation. It's better to become a vassal to a much stronger empire instead of losing couple of cities, including the capital and then become a vassal after all the damage is done. The second scenario is likely a game over, so the AI doesn't choose in it's best interest. How can it be fixed? Does AI fails to estimate if it can defend?

eh, I mean becoming a vassal isn't great, you lose a lot of yields to your master (especially if the ramp up the taxes), and it takes a long time before you can free yourself. I'm pretty happy that the AI has to feel really beaten before it vassals, otherwise I think it would happen far too easily.

 

[CppMaster]

eh, I mean becoming a vassal isn't great, you lose a lot of yields to your master (especially if the ramp up the taxes), and it takes a long time before you can free yourself. I'm pretty happy that the AI has to feel really beaten before it vassals, otherwise I think it would happen far too easily.

Sure, but is it really better to lose cities and capital? You would probably lose much more yields that way. That is, if the agressor decide to not conquer all of your cities.

I don't actually know the numbers that vassals pay to master, so maybe it's actually better to lose those cities? In that case maybe being a vassal is too harsh.

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

Yes, but sometimes we dont want the AI to make the best decision for themselves, we also need a challenge.

 

[CppMaster]

Yes, but sometimes we dont want the AI to make the best decision for themselves, we also need a challenge.

The challenge of conquering a much weaker civ that could otherwise be a vassal of a much stronger empire? It's more challenging to fight against those 2.

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

The challenge of conquering a much weaker civ that could otherwise be a vassal of a much stronger empire? It's more challenging to fight against those 2.

I meant if they give in to you as a player too easily. But no I hate when AI get diplo vassals too.

 

[CppMaster]

I meant if they give in to you as a player too easily. But no I hate when AI get diplo vassals too.

I meant AI behaviour in general, not just when interacting with human to avoid the disparity.

What do you hate about vassalage?

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

I dont like it when it happens diplomatically, it just feels unfair. The civ that gets it already is doing well and then they get a boost for free pretty much.

 

[CppMaster]

I dont like it when it happens diplomatically, it just feels unfair. The civ that gets it already is doing well and then they get a boost for free pretty much.

Yep, because they have developed a powerful empire, so they reap benefits.

Also, the decision is for the weak empire. Is it better to be a vassal or to lose couple of cities, many lives, trade routes and have demolished improvements. Moreover, the weak empire would probably focus entirely on military to not be annihilated (which still is possible), so their science, culture and economy would also suffer. War is hell. In that case, being a vassal is preferable.

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

Im clearly speaking out of what is fun in the game, not what makes sense. Agree to disagree, dont think this is going anywhere.

 

[CppMaster]

Ok

 

[Rekk]

Current: Embarked units defend with combat strength equivalent to their base combat strength when on land. They deal no damage

Proposed: All embarked units have the same combat strength (unless they have an embarked modifier promotion. This combat strength changes with every era.

In most cases, naval units come at the middle/end of the era, so frequently ships from the previous era will be attacking ships in the current era. The goal is for the previous era of newly built melee ships to be dealing to destroy an embarked unit in two or three attacks (before combat experience kicks in).

Era	Embarked Unit Combat Strength	Naval Melee Unit Base CS	New Naval Unit CS with Military Buildings​	Damage dealt to Embarked Unit from later Era	Damage dealt to Embarked Unit from same Era
Ancient	5	12	12	n/a	64.8
Classical	8	18	18	39	59.5
Medieval	12	25	28	33.5	59.9
Renaissance	23	40	52	43.0	60.9
Industrial	31	55	71	41.5	61
Modern	44	70	101	50.8	61.5
Atomic	51	80	116	51.0	60.4
Information	57	90	130	52.7	60.6

Notes:
units are expected to get better at destroying embarked units as eras progress
buildings are assumed to add +15% CS in various forms
Ancient + Classical: no expectation that Barracks has been built
Medieval: Requires Barracks tech
Renaissance: Requires Armory tech
Industrial + Modern: no expectation that Military Academy has been built
Atomic + Information: Military Academy tech required

The main change here is that UnitCombat doesn't determine how well an embarked unit (on a transport ship) defends against a military ship. What is being determined here is the defensive strength of the transport ship.
For example, an embarked Machine Gun is no better at defending against a Destroyer than an embarked Tank.

Of course, Melee units get bonus health, but there's not much we can do account for it.

If anyone has a better idea of what Naval Attacker CS I should be looking at, I'm willing to recalculate.

 

[AndreyK]

May be I don't understand something, but how is damage to units from previous era, which are weaker, is less?

 

[Rekk]

May be I don't understand something, but how is damage to units from previous era, which are weaker, is less?

That's by naval military units from the previous era. Sorry that it's not clear.

 

[azum4roll]

Where would this CS be shown in game?