Vox Populi Congress Proposal Workshop

[pineappledan]

I'm still waiting to hear back from AI games or from user feedback if the spain changes we already made last session have made any dent.
The rework for military unit faith purchases should have made Spain's existing kit much more usable. We also reworked the Hacienda.

w.r.t. the free inquisitor on conquest. If it were moved to the inquisition belief that's fine in theory, as long as Spain is properly compensated with some other flavorful bonus. However, having both free inquisitors and cheaper ones on the same belief is bloated and overlapping. One would have to replace the other, imo

 

[pineappledan]

In the tradition of pulling parts off enlightenment era, I think we should use EE's icons and unit model for the field gun in base VP. If EE wants to add a new siege unit, they can add the current VP field gun back in.

EE field Gun's icon:

This appears to be an American civil war era piece. It has a similar look to the cannons used in the civil war scenario:

The current VP field gun uses this icon:

It is a French soixante-quinze, a WWI-era field gun.

Reason for change:
- The current VP field gun is ugly and it's an anachronism.
- The current gun model used was a direct fire weapon, incapable of being angled up to shoot in an arc. Using this specific gun as the one that gets indirect fire doesn't make sense.

 

[Stalker0]

Talking Stars and Skies. I do think it still needs a nerf, but the last proposal failed:

Proposal: Change it to
+1 Faith from Tundra/Snow tiles with resources, +1 Food, +1 Culture for every two worked Tundra/Snow tiles

So its a tricky question. I actually think its very easy for the pantheon to go from S tier to F, mainly because tundra starts aren't all that great.


Perhaps we could change the bonus to be on the city tile (if that tile is tundra/snow). aka how purity works with rivers. This ensures that you are pushing into the klondike (rather than settling away a bit and still reaping the benefits). Putting on the city itself would keep its very fast speed, but we could scale it so it doesn't scale based on your tiles, so we don't have to worry about a snowball that this often provides.

Ex: Stars and Skies
+2 food, faith, and culture from cities on tundra or snow tiles.

 

[pineappledan]

+1 Faith from Tundra/Snow tiles with resources, +1 Food, +1 Culture for every two worked Tundra/Snow tiles

As the code currently works, 1 worked tundra tile and 1 worked snow tile will not combine to give the yield. I really don't like these invisible yields in any case, but the way they also don't mix makes this a non-starter to me.

I still think it should just be 1 for resource on tundra or snow. Keep the food restricted. Keeps tundra/snow starts food-poor and differentiates more from Hunt and desert. It keeps the main bonus that the current pantheon has: high culture.

 

[Stalker0]

I still think it should just be 1 for resource on tundra or snow. Keep the food restricted. Keeps tundra/snow starts food-poor and differentiates more from Hunt and desert. It keeps the main bonus that the current pantheon has: high culture.

This would except in extraordinary cases be straight up worse than hunt. Hunt provides all of this plus more food.

I just never see klondike starts where camp resources aren't a major part of the mix.

 

[Anarcomu]

I don't know if it have ever been brought, or if it is a good idea or not, but could it be possible to double all values, so that all those +1/2 values being always taken into account ?
This way, other small % bonuses start kicking in quicker in case of low values (ie a +10% would start giving benefit at +5 instead of +10, referring to current values).

 

[pineappledan]

This would except in extraordinary cases be straight up worse than hunt. Hunt provides all of this plus more food.

My dude, If hunt is stronger then take hunt.

From this, I don’t think you and I could ever agree on an end balance. If stars and sky is bar none the single best pantheon to pick on a tundra start 100% of the time then it’s obviously not balanced. If you have Mixed resources on a tundra then tundra is the common thread, and you take stars&sky. If you are up to your ears in deer and you're still contemplating Stars&Sky then the balance is off.

Edit: this focus on the yields also ignores that stars and sky is faster than improvement-based pantheons, and therefore a safer found. That should be accounted for, and Hunt should offer more yields overall on average, because it's slower

 

[ma_kuh]

Sky and Hunt should just have different yields entirely, no? Sky being "exotic" yields like culture, but doing nothing to solve low food in tundra, and Hunt being there to solve production+food but giving you no science/culture should be the design.

I'd have to open up the specific beliefs in game to make a real suggestion, but they should just be apples to oranges, that's how you keep them both relevant.

I think across the board the pantheons need a little bit of a normalization pass, in the sense that there should be definitive "fix my start" options which focus on basics like food in desert/tundra, production in jungle/coast, etc., and separate "give me special stuff" options that don't do anything for your infrastructure but jumpstart your science/culture/GPs/whatever (faith, of course, being present in every pantheon and therefore not special).

 

[Stalker0]

My dude, If hunt is stronger then take hunt.

From this, I don’t think you and I could ever agree on an end balance. If stars and sky is bar none the single best pantheon to pick on a tundra start 100% of the time then it’s obviously not balanced. If you have Mixed resources on a tundra then tundra is the common thread, and you take stars&sky. If you are up to your ears in deer and you're still contemplating Stars&Sky then the balance is off.

Edit: this focus on the yields also ignores that stars and sky is faster than improvement-based pantheons, and therefore a safer found. That should be accounted for, and Hunt should offer more yields overall on average, because it's slower

Right now I find SS and Hunt pretty neck and neck. It really comes down to how the resources shake out, and often if one is taken I can take the other and still be very comfortable.

This change would mean I just take hunt on Klondike starts anytime I can get it.

Now if there are Klondike’s on certain maps that have few camp resources than fair enough, I’ve never seen it myself

 

[pineappledan]

Your proposal:
Resource on trundra/snow: 1 0.5 0.5
No resource tundra/snow: 0.5 0.5

My proposal:
Resource on trundra/snow: 11

Your proposal is actually weaker on resource tiles, so your criticism re: stacking up to hunt is just as pertinent, if not more so. Your version’s advantage is it gets stronger once you have enough to start working non-resource tundra tiles. This is far off the game start. I don’t think this advantage is worth more invisible yields, half yields not mixing and adding off different terrain types, and the headache it causes with city governors not accounting for it.

You already hate the existing component that gives yields per X tundra tiles worked (caravansary); I don’t know why you seem to want to copy it.

 

[Rekk]

In the tradition of pulling parts off enlightenment era, I think we should use EE's icons and unit model for the field gun in base VP. If EE wants to add a new siege unit, they can add the current VP field gun back in.

EE field Gun's icon:
View attachment 674077
This appears to be an American civil war era piece. It has a similar look to the cannons used in the civil war scenario:
View attachment 674079
The current VP field gun uses this icon:
View attachment 674078
It is a French soixante-quinze, a WWI-era field gun.

Reason for change:
- The current VP field gun is ugly and it's an anachronism.
- The current gun model used was a direct fire weapon, incapable of firing being angled up to shoot in an arc. Using this specific model of gun as the one that gets direct fire doesn't make sense.

Yes please. The model is from the Civil War scenario, but I was struggling to find an appropriate portrait, since the civil war portrait looks so similar to the Cannon's portrait.

Were these cannons readily made for indirect fire? Or should field gun really just have the built in range?

 

[Phosphoraptor]

Spoiler Quote :

In the tradition of pulling parts off enlightenment era, I think we should use EE's icons and unit model for the field gun in base VP. If EE wants to add a new siege unit, they can add the current VP field gun back in.

EE field Gun's icon:
View attachment 674077
This appears to be an American civil war era piece. It has a similar look to the cannons used in the civil war scenario:
View attachment 674079
The current VP field gun uses this icon:
View attachment 674078
It is a French soixante-quinze, a WWI-era field gun.

Reason for change:
- The current VP field gun is ugly and it's an anachronism.
- The current gun model used was a direct fire weapon, incapable of being angled up to shoot in an arc. Using this specific gun as the one that gets indirect fire doesn't make sense.

Building off of this, can we also change the current gatling gun to use model of the current field gun? Then rename the field gun to howitzer, and gatling to field gun.

---

Reasons:

Gatling guns were never widely used enough irl to represent the role of ranged/field artillery in this era, direct fire guns with shot/shell like in CIV 6 were much more widely used and fits the theme of being unlocked by Dynamite.

Field guns like the ones currently in the game were used to suppress the human wave style infantry formations during this era up to WWI, so the current suppression promotion is still appropriate.

Howitzers (the naming) are appropriate as a siege unit in this time period since they were designed to beat bastion forts that were everywhere in Europe by more easily arching their shots onto the battlements (and defenders)

 

[pineappledan]

Building off of this, can we also change the current gatling gun to use model of the current field gun? Then rename the field gun to howitzer, and gatling to field gun.

But then we need 2 new sets of models and icons to replace them.

I agree that Gatling guns had a very brief useful history, but we are dealing with alt history here. I'm willing to imagine a world where gatling guns and similar rotary weapons had a longer service history in the same way I'm willing to imagine a Babylonian naval empire spreading the true faith of Butts-Butts-Butts to the world.

 

[ma_kuh]

Spain has unique faith and settling mechanics; we should push them more in the direction they are already heading.

What would you say the value of "Can buy faith buildings with gold" would be? I know you can already insta-buy with faith, but faith becomes a key GP resource later in the game, so letting you purchase some of your faith infrastructure with gold seems like a uniquely useful tool for new expansions. Probably would need a 1/turn cooldown for things like Faith of the Masses etc.

Alternatively, how about "Founded cities build a random faith building of your majority religion". You can always pick Fealty for the Monastery, but I'm wondering if making it a gamble would be a net negative, or lead to feels-bad moments where you're hoping for Teocalli but the Monastery gets picked instead.

Alternatively x2, "Founded cities start a Mission [after entering the Renaissance era]" and you can keep in that flavor without hiding it on the Conquistador settles only. And then you can put some suped-up unique abilities there?

 

[Stalker0]

Your proposal:
Resource on trundra/snow: 1 0.5 0.5
No resource tundra/snow: 0.5 0.5

My proposal:
Resource on trundra/snow: 11

Your proposal is actually weaker on resource tiles, so your criticism re: stacking up to hunt is just as pertinent, if not more so. Your version’s advantage is it gets stronger once you have enough to start working non-resource tundra tiles. This is far off the game start. I don’t think this advantage is worth more invisible yields, half yields not mixing and adding off different terrain types, and the headache it causes with city governors not accounting for it.

You already hate the existing component that gives yields per X tundra tiles worked (caravansary); I don’t know why you seem to want to copy it.

I think you may have misunderstood. The proposal you are quoting is not mine, its what was proposed previously and failed (and rereading my post I can understand the confusion). I was showing it to highlight what was attempted before, not to say "we should just retry this proposal".

 

[Stalker0]

Here's an example of why god of the sea can be so good. From my initial start of two whales, I am already thinking sea might be an option, so I explore the coast. I go pottery first, which is one of my first two techs anyway, so going it first or second doesn't often have a big impact, but by going first here and exploring the coast, I can already map out the cities I need to get the monopoly, all before my monument is even finished and my 2nd tech is started. (for context I hit the whale monopoly with 3 cities on turn 54)

This is why sea is solid, I know very early on if its going to be a good pantheon, so I can plan for it. and the sea resources are still solid even if I don't get the pantheon.

 

[ma_kuh]

Should sea resources just be pulled from the list of solo-monopoly options, and only show up as possible 1-of per player spawns? And then GoSea would be balanced around the prevalance of more natural fishing spots, and not on 6 possible luxuries in addition to the fish?

 

[axatin]

Taking normal tribute cancels only personal quests, global ones stay active. Taking heavy tribute cancels all quests. That's not intuitive and we should consider changing one of the two to make it consistent.

 

[ma_kuh]

@Stalker0 I saw your proposals list, I think there's an opportunity for a mechanically cohesive and thematic win for some of the pantheon changes you're suggesting. I would rather not throw in a bunch of counter proposals if possible, so I'm wondering if you'd like to run with some of these ideas or incorporate them in your proposals:

Problems:
God of Craftsmen, God of the Sun -- these are pretty bare yields-based choices, so anything that gives you more yields is just the default better choice. On top of that, they are somewhat inconsistent, or push a benefit that isn't much needed (more food on farms?).
God of War -- it has a lot of power baked into its faith scaling, so the production boost is being whittled down considerably.

Solution:
Give them each a thematic scaling production boost, so that they speak to specific economic goals.

A rough draft:
God of War => remove the production from Barracks entirely, replace with "Barracks gets +10% when training military units" (faith unchanged)
God of Craftsmen => remove the production from Stoneworks, replace with "Stoneworks gets +10% when making buildings"; give +2 to all cities (instead of gating behind a relatively late building; better and earlier consistency for the faith generation)
God of the Sun => Add "Granary gets +10% when training civilian units". This would be in addition to some tweaks to the gold/food/faith. Becomes a good choice if you're looking for early settlers, and then also pivots into workers for your new cities. Food supports this by lowering the cooldown between settler builds.

Alternatively give Sun some sort of worker speed boost, as it emphasizes building farms which is the earliest adjacency improvement and therefore wants to be spammed.
And actually, thinking about it a little more, you could even roll God of the Sea into this group and further split "military units" between land and sea. If we went this way we'd also probably split land civilians from work boats, and include both military boats and work boats in Sea.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Stalker0]

@Stalker0 I saw your proposals list, I think there's an opportunity for a mechanically cohesive and thematic win for some of the pantheon changes you're suggesting. I would rather not throw in a bunch of counter proposals if possible, so I'm wondering if you'd like to run with some of these ideas or incorporate them in your proposals:

Problems:
God of Craftsmen, God of the Sun -- these are pretty bare yields-based choices, so anything that gives you more yields is just the default better choice. On top of that, they are somewhat inconsistent, or push a benefit that isn't much needed (more food on farms?).
God of War -- it has a lot of power baked into its faith scaling, so the production boost is being whittled down considerably.

Solution:
Give them each a thematic scaling production boost, so that they speak to specific economic goals.

A rough draft:
God of War => remove the production from Barracks entirely, replace with "Barracks gets +10% when training military units" (faith unchanged)
God of Craftsmen => remove the production from Stoneworks, replace with "Stoneworks gets +10% when making buildings"; give +2 to all cities (instead of gating behind a relatively late building; better and earlier consistency for the faith generation)
God of the Sun => Add "Granary gets +10% when training civilian units". This would be in addition to some tweaks to the gold/food/faith. Becomes a good choice if you're looking for early settlers, and then also pivots into workers for your new cities. Food supports this by lowering the cooldown between settler builds.

Alternatively give Sun some sort of worker speed boost, as it emphasizes building farms which is the earliest adjacency improvement and therefore wants to be spammed.
And actually, thinking about it a little more, you could even roll God of the Sea into this group and further split "military units" between land and sea. If we went this way we'd also probably split land civilians from work boats, and include both military boats and work boats in Sea.

What are your thoughts on this?

War - Ultimately you are just trading X for X in a different form. To me the problem is.. there is no reason right now for a warmonger not to take the war pantheon, its just too overtly good. I think it needs to be nerfed.

Craftsman - This would be a pretty sizable buff, would certainly make it attractive. I don't think I need to change my proposal, but a counterproposal here I think is worth considering.

Sun - I still say that sun just has a bad founding path, and its not cool enough to risk non-founding. It would need a more fundamental change than this to me.