Vox Populi Congress Proposal Workshop

[Recursive]

Hey all,

I thought it would be good to have a dedicated thread to brainstorm/develop ideas for future Vox Populi Congress proposals. Post ideas here and others in the community can give feedback on them, or you can work together.

You might also want to use the Discord server or create your own thread in the Community Patch Project subforum, both of which are also allowed in conjunction with this thread.

This will also help with communication between proposers and sponsors (who can be found on the new Sponsorship Registration thread, once they register). If a sponsor has registered as an "Open Sponsor", you can request their assistance with your ideas (but they are not under any obligation to fulfill them).

Cheers!

 

[Tekamthi]

its probably not an important part of the mod to most people, but I occasionally read the civilopedia, especially when I am grappling with some of the larger abstractions VP makes with various historical concepts, or just out of interest. I used to play civ 1 & 2 in pre-internet days and read each civilopedia entry back then in detail, each time I'd research a new unit or tech or w/e, for at least the first few playthroughs. This info that is now somewhat trivial, maybe, but back then, it was invaluable to learning about history and immersion of the game. In this sense I dislike where VP weaves heavy abstraction into the "historical info" portion of the civilopedia. A few come to mind in particular, such as "slinger" and "lodge" in the ancient era -- the "historical info" for these are both just fabricated VP history, the former even includes a "historical" reference to "goliath". Others just seem to follow inconsistent formats, sometimes including relatively lengthy historically-based paragraphs under the "strategy" heading, other times just referring in point form to the way the mechanism works in-game under this heading. With some text-only db changes, though, this minor gripe can be fixed.

So I wonder, what is the right balance for a good civilopedia entry? If I were to make proposals for text-only changes, what is the model format the community would prefer to emulate? Are there any specific entries that people remember actually learning something new from? Or any particular style of writing these summaries that stands out? Are there any civilopedia entries you've noticed that really miss the mark?

Also, would a proposal for text-only change be complete enough to be a valid proposal if it included only english text? If not, what languages does VP ship with?

 

[Enginseer]

its probably not an important part of the mod to most people, but I occasionally read the civilopedia, especially when I am grappling with some of the larger abstractions VP makes with various historical concepts, or just out of interest. I used to play civ 1 & 2 in pre-internet days and read each civilopedia entry back then in detail, each time I'd research a new unit or tech or w/e, for at least the first few playthroughs. This info that is now somewhat trivial, maybe, but back then, it was invaluable to learning about history and immersion of the game. In this sense I dislike where VP weaves heavy abstraction into the "historical info" portion of the civilopedia. A few come to mind in particular, such as "slinger" and "lodge" in the ancient era -- the "historical info" for these are both just fabricated VP history, the former even includes a "historical" reference to "goliath". Others just seem to follow inconsistent formats, sometimes including relatively lengthy historically-based paragraphs under the "strategy" heading, other times just referring in point form to the way the mechanism works in-game under this heading. With some text-only db changes, though, this minor gripe can be fixed.

So I wonder, what is the right balance for a good civilopedia entry? If I were to make proposals for text-only changes, what is the model format the community would prefer to emulate? Are there any specific entries that people remember actually learning something new from? Or any particular style of writing these summaries that stands out? Are there any civilopedia entries you've noticed that really miss the mark?

Also, would a proposal for text-only change be complete enough to be a valid proposal if it included only english text? If not, what languages does VP ship with?

I don't think a proposal is needed to do specifically text-only changes. Just pull request on the GitHub so an editor can read through them and it'll be out in the next version.

 

[Tekamthi]

I don't think a proposal is needed to do specifically text-only changes.

fair -- however with both the "slinger" and "lodge", I am inclined to propose name changes for these VP-additions along with updated civilopedia-entry. The "lodge", for example, has been plucked out of the middle ages as a stand-in for the role of the ancient "smokehouse". I am happy with the in-game function of these, but I'd like to re-brand each. Is this the stuff of proposals?

 

[Enginseer]

fair -- however with both the "slinger" and "lodge", I am inclined to propose name changes for these VP-additions along with updated civilopedia-entry. The "lodge", for example, has been plucked out of the middle ages as a stand-in for the role of the ancient "smokehouse". I am happy with the in-game function of these, but I'd like to re-brand each. Is this the stuff of proposals?

I guess that would be the proposal type of thing yeah since some unique slinger/lodge may rely on the naming of them...

 

[azum4roll]

Standardize what "every yield/all yields" means:
Morocco: remove GAP from UA
Statecraft opener: remove GAP and tourism
Transcendent Thoughts: remove GAP and tourism, probably buff the number a bit
Mandir: no change
Pagoda: no change
Throne Room: no change
Natural Heritage Sites: no change

 

[N.Core]

Standardize what "every yield/all yields" means:
Morocco: remove GAP from UA
Statecraft opener: remove GAP and tourism
Transcendent Thoughts: remove GAP and tourism, probably buff the number a bit
Mandir: no change
Pagoda: no change
Throne Room: no change
Natural Heritage Sites: no change

This change will require a proposal. Better just to keep it as it is, but change the text temporarily until the proposal gets passed.

 

[Enginseer]

Standardize what "every yield/all yields" means:
Morocco: remove GAP from UA
Statecraft opener: remove GAP and tourism
Transcendent Thoughts: remove GAP and tourism, probably buff the number a bit
Mandir: no change
Pagoda: no change
Throne Room: no change
Natural Heritage Sites: no change

My issue with this is that you have some that say all City Yields and some to all Yields sooo

 

[azum4roll]

This change will require a proposal. Better just to keep it as it is, but change the text temporarily until the proposal gets passed.

This is a proposal draft thread...

 

[ilikepickles]

I've already played a few games with Authority + God of War and I feel the pantheon is way too strong after the buffs. With the faith on kill + 2 faith from a building I'm already rushing in every city anyway, I'm able to found with no problem even on Deity, and then also keep a very good heal on kill utility that no other pantheon provides. Stacked with the Dominance bonus, it's by far the strongest pantheon with Authority in any situation. I feel like either removing the Barracks bonus and increasing the faith on kill or just removing the heal on kill utility would be more fair.

 

[azum4roll]

Historic Event instant tourism currently has a penalty on city count (2% per non-capital non-puppet city, see code here), but it's also modified by the per-player tourism modifier, which includes the (relatively) new city difference mod (-5% per non-puppet city difference). The legacy 2% per city penalty should be removed for being double dipping.

Weirdly, it also seems to count instant tourism and culture yields when calculating the amount of yields for Historic Events, so it currently benefits off itself. Should this be removed? Both changes combined should slightly nerf CV (can be bigger for civs that trigger historic events in quick succession, like Arabia).
Nevermind it doesn't do that.

 

[jarcast2]

I don't know if it is the right place because my post concerns more additions rather than changes to current VP, but as a modmodder I would like:

1) a lua game event that keeps track when a historic event of a certain type is triggered without having to use several other ones for each different source.
2) the possibility to code a trade unit that is not constrained only to land or sea tiles. I tried to code a multi-modal trade unit (i.e. goes over land and water by converting itself to switch domain) for a civ trait, as well as an Air trade unit that unlocks with Flight but trade units are hardcoded so it's impossible with just sql and lua.

 

[azum4roll]

Trade Routes themselves can only be routed through one domain. Changing this will also affect religious pressure as they share the same pathfinding algorithm.

 

[Recursive]

I don't know if it is the right place because my post concerns more additions rather than changes to current VP, but as a modmodder I would like:

1) a lua game event that keeps track when a historic event of a certain type is triggered without having to use several other ones for each different source.
2) the possibility to code a trade unit that is not constrained only to land or sea tiles. I tried to code a multi-modal trade unit (i.e. goes over land and water by converting itself to switch domain) for a civ trait, as well as an Air trade unit that unlocks with Flight but trade units are hardcoded so it's impossible with just sql and lua.

Proposals should relate to balance changes. If it's just a feature request it should be posted on GitHub.

Amendment: Changes that will take place in unmodded Vox Populi and are visible to the player.

 

[CppMaster]

Proposals should relate to balance changes. If it's just a feature request it should be posted on GitHub.

Not just balance changes. There were successful proposals for mod integration that I'm very happy with.

 

[Recursive]

Not just balance changes. There were successful proposals for mod integration that I'm very happy with.

Amendment: Changes that will take place in unmodded Vox Populi and are visible to the player.

 

[pineappledan]

Reduce base yields of Wall of Babylon from 4 to 3
give the building 1building maintenance (same as base wall)
Reason: it's too strong right now

Remove heal on kill from God of War
Reason: it's too strong right now, and doesn't need 3 abilities

Remove free worker on completion
Add "Workers do not suffer a reduced improvement rate when captured (ie. immune to prisoner of war)"

reasoning:
Statue of Zeus already gives a free Barracks. also giving a free worker on top is too much free hammers.
If SoZ made captured workers immune to the -50% improvement speed plague then that would fit better with SoZ's pre-existing offensive theme
SoZ also already gives a free unique promotion, so all that is required is to add a plague immunity to that promotion and give that promotion to workers.

Brute Force current bonus vs barbs: 33%
Brute force is currently on Adventurers, Warriors, and Spearmen (and their respective UUs)

Current bonuses vs barbarians from difficulty:


New handicaps: Difficulty: (Human - AI)
Settler: 60 - 0
Chieftain: 40 - 20
Warlord: 33 - 33
Prince: 33 - 33
King: 25 - 40
Emperor: 25 - 40
Immortal: 10 - 50
Deity: 0 - 50

Lower Brute Force bonuse vs barbarians to +25% (down from +33%)
remove Brute Force promotion from Spearmen (ie. revert change from last congress)

reasoning:

• Warriors would effectively stay the same or be slightly stronger vs barbarians at most difficulties, losing 8% off their promotion, but hedging that against difficulty. slingers, spearmen, scouts etc. would become stronger vs barbs
• The stated reason for adding brute force to spears last congress was that warriors are a little too good vs barbs for their cost relative to spears, which are only slightly better, but much more expensive, but that reasoning fails to account for difficulty bonuses
• Weakening brute force slightly would widen the gap between spearmen and warriors, making warriors less "efficient" vs barbs relative to spearmen, and making upgrading more worthwhile
• increasing bonuses vs barbarians overall satisfies a general complaint that barbarians have gotten too punishing, especially on lower difficulties

The Happiness should be given to the city it is built in. Right now it givesit to the capital regardless of where the wonder is located.
Feels more like a bug fix, but it does affect balance.

Give Conquistador the Religious Settlers ability (already in the DLL), which converts a new city they found automatically to the religion of their source city.
Remove the Mission secret bonus building from the conquistador

used to trigger a self-spread on the city so they can be converted to your religion without having to send a missionary​

extra component and button push​

uses a naughty dummy building​

Currently gives:

1 base yields​

+2for each adjacent bonus resource​

+2for each adjacent strategic resource​

+2for each adjacent luxury resource​

+2 if adjacent to a city​

Change to:

2base yields​

+2for each adjacent bonus resource​

+2for each adjacent strategic resource​

+2for each adjacent luxury resource​

remove city adjacency (gives weird incentive to settle on resources so 1 tile gives 2 different adjacent bonuses)
make the base yield a different type of yield from the ones the adjacency gives so the rewards are more clearly visible

Feitoria:
only buildable on coast not adjacent to another feitoria
33 base yield
+2at printing press
+2at astronomy
+2 at industrialization

+1 for every adjacent water tile
+1 for every adjacent fishing boat

Gives vision in 2 tile radius
25% tile defense

Can be placed by a Caravel in city state territory
gives Portugal a copy of that city-state's luxuries
trade routes to that city-state give to the origin city scaling with the TR's gold per turn

Proposal:
Remove the adjacency bonuses for water and fishing boats
increase base yields of the improvement to 43
change the tech bonus on printing press from 2 to 2

Reasons:

• the adjacencies are redundant with the placement limitations. They do not affect the decision of where to place feitorias, because the primary concern is maximizing spots, not adjacencies.
• They add more complexity to the most complex improvement that exists in the game
• There are other improvements in the game that need adjacencies to feel special (eg. moai, eki), or counterbalance their placement restrictions (eg. Kasbah). The adjacencies on feitoria only serve to make adjacencies as a whole a more common, and therefore less interesting bonus.
• The 2 on printing press gives the Feitoria the same yield types as a village. Portugal is already more of a civ, and Feitoria could bolster that instead of pulling against it by copying the village.

Current diplomatic marriage bonuses:

• +200 resting influence with that City-State
• +1 World Congress Vote
• +15% Great person Rate in the Capital

New diplomatic marriage bonuses:

• Raises resting influence by the amount of your Influence you have with that city-state at the time of Marriage
• +15% Great person Rate in the Capital

Reasons:

• Austria is very very strong, and they deserve a nerf
• The current +200 resting influence incentivizes you to marry low-influence allies quickly, because your resting influence with them will recover upwards, giving free influence each turn.
• Making the resting influence variable makes timing your marriage into a choice. Do you do it now, or do you wait and try to increase the influence even more before you lock-in?
• Shifts the incentive of the marriages from maximizing free influence from being underneath the recovery point at the time of marriage to minimizing the decay penalties from being over your resting influence level.
• Removing the WC vote simplifies the bonus into 1 diplomatic bonus and 1 GP/cultural bonus. The CV abilities of Austria have been outweighed and drowned out by the strong diplomatic rewards. Removing 1 of the diplomatic rewards will help Austria feel more well-rounded.
• extra World Congress votes aren't a good UA reward, because you have your UA since turn 1, but the bonus does nothing for 3 eras before you can use it. UA bonuses should come into play before that

 

[azum4roll]

Raises resting influence by the amount of your Influence you have with that city-state at the time of Marriage

Not liking this because there's no way AI will do this right. Just removing the vote is ok.

 

[pineappledan]

Could simply add an AI decision for it. If I am Austria and city state is allied and not married and [CURRENT INFLUENCE] > ( [RESTING INFLUENCE] + X ) then marry.

Doesn’t seem too hard. Even if they ally as soon as they can, they are still getting at least +60 resting influence.

 

[pineappledan]

If the marriage is weakened like this, maybe we could relax the restriction on when marriages are allowed? Could just make it require being allied, and not allied for 5 turns. That always struck me as onerous, hard to track/remember to go back to for players, and a bit of a pain.