Continuing my trend of recording my votes are raitonales for various thread, for anyone who in anyway cares. I may post and then edit as I complete more of the votes.
[Vote] - (5-01) Proposal: Chichen Itza provides a free Teocalli. | CivFanatics Forums
No - I don't mind the idea, but Chichen is a strong wonder right now that needs no buffs. If this was paired with a slight buff, sure, otherwise, I don't think a straight up buff is needed.
[Vote] - (5-03) Medic I/II Adjustments | CivFanatics Forums
No - I was tempted by proposal A here, as I do think medic could use a soft nerf, but this one is just a bit too much for melee units.
[Vote] - (5-04) Nerf Wall of Babylon | CivFanatics Forums
Yes - I still don't know if the global GS boosting bonuses is salvageable, it may just always be too good, but this is a clear step in the right direction and definately needed.
[Vote] - (5-05) Nerf God of War proposals | CivFanatics Forums
Yes for OG. Proposal A was tempting here, but ultimately I am not sure if its a true nerf or not all said and done. More XP (almost 100% more) on a kill is a big bonus. Ultimately the OG proposal is a clean and simple nerf.
[Vote] - (5-06) Statue of Zeus / Terracotta Army Changes | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to OG. I think this maintains the spirit of the "free worker" we gave the wonder but in a more interesting "warmonger" kind of way. The other change I don't know if it really improves things or not.
[Vote] - (5-07) Brute Force and Difficulty Barbarian Bonus rescaling | CivFanatics Forums
No - I've had none of the issues people using as justification for this change. I never look at spearman and think they are never worth upgrading warriors to. Its always a question of tech, if I get to bronze working than I'm absolutely getting spears. So I don't think a change is necessary here, frankly I didn't think giving spears brute force was needed either.
[Vote] - (5-10) Simplify Hacienda | CivFanatics Forums
No. At the end of the day, I don't think this proposal "simplifies" anything, not really. And in some ways it makes the building weaker unless you can get the key needed adjacencies, again founding those combos even more important to the use of the building.
[Vote] - (5-11) Feitoria changes | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to OG and A. I agree the adjacencies here are vestigial and replacing them with a slightly stronger core just makes the buildign better. And then having more canal options, that is just fun for a water focused civ like Portugal.
[Vote] - (5-12) Polder changes | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to OG. The A proposal....ultimately adjacencies have to create some interesting decisions or at least fun builds. Villages have enough going on with them to make them useful that forcing them to work with the polder too I think is overkill.
I do think this is the last buff the polder will need, they have recieved several boosts in the last few versions and are moving from a pretty ho hum UI to a very good one.
[Vote] - (5-13) America 3 Wonder & Slater Mill changes | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain - Having doen enough America plays after the last set of changes to really have a strong opinion.
[Vote] - (5-15) Add 2 Horses to Circus Maximus | CivFanatics Forums
Yes - I think people like some guaranteed strategics, seem to work well for the iron works.
[Vote] - (5-16) Polish Ducal Stable nerf | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Polands needs a nerf and this is a simple and easy one. Probably won't be enough to do the job, but its a perfectly good start.
[Vote] - (5-18) Ancient Ruin changes | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain. I haven't played with ruins in a while now, so I don't have a good opinion.
[Vote] - (5-19) Reduce faith cost increase with Eras | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to OG. Proposal A focused on just alternate faith uses, but I do think the era scaling on basic faith units could use some pull back as well.
[Vote] - (5-20): Barbarian Swordsman Buff | CivFanatics Forums
No. Barbs are already quite scary nowadays, I don't see the need for this. Barb units are weaker than regular ones, nothing wrong with that. Swords in camps are already pretty annoying to deal with.
[Vote] - (5-21) Chariot Archers and all its replacements should receive Skirmisher Doctrine + Hand-axeman Rework | CivFanatics Forums
No. If this was just the main unit change, I could see it, but I think skirmisher type barbs are SUPER ANNOYING, and I don't want to encourage them.
[Vote] - (5-22): Denmark changes | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain - Considered this one a lot but I just don't play Denmark enough to really know how much this changes things.
[Vote] - (5-23) Divine Teachings should lets you faith-purchase Libraries and buffs them. | CivFanatics Forums
Yes - seems a no-brainer to improve a weak belief.
[Vote] - (5-24) Japan Nerf Proposals | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to OG. Ultimately I think this is a solid nerf that leaves Japan relatively unchanged in concept. That said, I do think B for me will stay on the table as a concept if we continue to learn that Japan needs more nerfs and really just can't handle the AI xp imbalances with its current UA.
[Vote] - (5-25) Withdraw From Melee Changes | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to b or c.
[Vote] - (5-26) Withdrawing From Melee Units Take Protected Civilians/Embarked Units With Them | CivFanatics Forums
Yes - seems a gimme idea to me.
[Vote] - (5-27) Tribute Changes (PT 1 - Adjustment of Tribute Modifiers) | CivFanatics Forums
Yes please!
[Vote] - (5-28) Tribute Changes (Pt 2 - Gold Adjustments, New "Quest Yields" Tribute | CivFanatics Forums
Yes please!
[Vote] - (5-29) Organization (Progress Policy) Nerf | CivFanatics Forums
Yes - a minor nerf to try and curtail a little bit of the wide concern people have expressed.
[Vote] - (5-30) Austria UA Change | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to A and B. Really had to think about this one. Ultimately a lot of people were very concered about the OG's extra boost to quests, thinking this was "crazy strong". I'll admit I really didn't think that bonus was that great, but I'm willing to lean on the community on that one, as the goal to me with a civ as obviously strong as Austria is it shoudl be an absolutely clear nerf. If people are debating if the change is "more a nerf or a buff" than we aren't doing it right imo.
B has the strongest leaning from me, its clean, simple, cuts to the heart of the issue. And if its too strong we can always gladly give Austria a buff somewhere else (likely her coffeehouse). I would also be ok with A is people really want the votes to remain in some fashion, as a 2/3s nerf of the mechanic is still a very strong push in that direction.
I'm not a big fan of the era scaling for c and d, and the double vote embassy of d feels like it still could be just too strong in the hands of a good austria player, who already is going to have early GDs through their bonuses.
[Vote] - (5-31) Nerf God of Stars and Sky | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I do think this is a good middle ground from some of the nerfs we have tried before (which turned out to be too harsh) as this leaves teh founding speed intact. I do think the pantheon is an S-tier one and so could use a reduction.
[Vote] - (5-33) Golden Age Removal Series: Increase the cost of Golden Ages | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to proposal A. I do think the first GA is too soon, but the 2nd one is usually pretty reasonable, so this is a good proposal to handle that.
[Vote] - (5-35) Golden Age Removal Series: Remove GAPs from luxury monopoly resources | CivFanatics Forums
No. I think this one pushes the envelope too far. I'm up for some removables, but I think monopolies are special enough to allow it.
[Vote] - (5-36) Golden Age Removal Series: Remove GAPs from Artistry Policy Tree | CivFanatics Forums
Yes.....though I really do not like all that extra faith from the great writing. I am greatly worried that is going to slam on Fealty's niche, and likely I will propose something different for that in a future congress if this passes. But the vast majority of this I'm willing to try out, so I'll go with a begrudging yes on this one.
[Vote] - (5-37) Golden Age Removal Series: Remove GAP from Mastery Belief | CivFanatics Forums
No, I think this is niche enough to allow GAP as a yield.
[Vote] - (5-38) Proposal: Buff Mongolia UU and UB | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain, haven't played enough Mongols in a while to comment.
[Vote] - (5-39) Patriotic War (Order) - All units healed -> units within 3 tiles of city. | CivFanatics Forums
Yes Please!
[Vote] - (5-40) T-34 - Armor Plating II removal | CivFanatics Forums
Yes please!
[Vote] - (5-41) Rationalism Reordering | CivFanatics Forums
No. To me a key notion of the proposal's rationale was that Rationalism was too front loaded. Now its true that the tree is currently front loaded, but do I think that's a bad thing? I mean....I don't consider rationalism an OP tree, I picked Imperalism and Industry plenty, it just depends on what I need. Further, I think strategies that want to cheery pick from a few policies in each tree should be encouraged....as that creates a lot more interesting options than just which tree am I going to pick. So ultimately I don't see the benefit of this change.
[Vote] - (5-42) Heavily Charged Units Take Protected Civilians/Embarked Units With Them | CivFanatics Forums
No. to me this is a benefit of having the heavy charge promotion.
[Vote] - (5-43) Changes to Unit/Building Maintenance Cost Scaling | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain. I'm just really unsure about this one. I'm a bit nervous about it because I actually think gold is very competitive in a lot of late game scenarios right now (though there are games where gold is incredible fluid, I have seen gold scarcity in many games). And I feel like this scenario might reduce overall gold costs in some ways and increase it with others, and I'm not really sure where it will ultimately end up.
[Vote] - (5-44) Shoshone UA change | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to A. As a player who doesn't use ancient ruins myself, I think its great to have a way to give Shoshone that ruin packaging in a way that isolates it to the civ and doesnt' expose the rest of the civs. I think that's great, and this version is a lot cleaner than the OG proposal to me in its implementation.
[Vote] - (5-45) Changes to Cossack's Withering Fire promotion | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to proposal A. I think having withdraws on a skirimisher unit is a bit strange to begin. This idea of them being able to pounce on a restricted unit feels a lot more interesting to me.
[Vote] - (5-46) Change text of ancient building, the "lodge", to represent a "smokehouse" | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain, I literally don't care.
[Vote] - (5-48) Russia UA buff | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Honestly this is more correcting an oversight when we made teh BGP change than a true balance adjustment.
Yes. I think expanse could use a buff after the BGP change.
[Vote] - (5-50) Liberating CS gives you a +100 resting influence | CivFanatics Forums
Yes Please!
[Vote] - (5-51) Stadium nerf | CivFanatics Forums
Yes, this is an easy way to remove some GAP without really affecting the balance of the building.
[Vote] - (5-52) India nerf | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. India did get a big crazy after the last change, this helps tone them back, we will see if its enough.
[Vote] - (5-53) Unit Capture consistency | CivFanatics Forums
No. While I love the idea of removing the random element, I think this is ultimately too abusable as written.
[Vote] - (5-54) New Skirmisher Pickable Promotion: Envelopment | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. A cool idea, definitely want to try it.
[Vote] - (5-55) New Recon line promotion: Frogman | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I'm willing to try, though honestly I don't think it will see much use. I'm not sure how much use recon units have in the water compared to amphibious infantry, and special forces gets amphibious anyway (SF probably should have gotten this promotion as a part of the proposal)
[Vote] - (5-56) New Recon line promotion: Screening | CivFanatics Forums
No. I am strong believer in the niche protection we created for skirmishers, and so it feels like we are letting recon units push in on that niche needlessly. You want double flanking you should be making skirmishers not recon units.
[Vote] - (5-57) Remove GAP from the AI handicap triggers | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. seems in the spirit with the GAP bonuses we remove from the human we are doing the same for the AI.
[Vote] - (5-58) Halve Passive Religious Pressure by War | CivFanatics Forums
No. War already stops active spread cold in its tracks, we don't need to reduce passive spread as well. Ultimately passive spread is the reward for being active in the early spread game, you shouldn't then get punished even more when your neighbor wars with you.
[Vote] - (5-59) "Gift specific unit" Quest reworked | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to proposal A. I do not want to nerf the rewards for this quest, while yes once in a while the rewards are high enough to be a "gimme" that is often not the case. This version I think reduces some of the exploits of insta buying a unit to accomplish it, which is enough for me.
[Vote] - (5-60) Heavy Charge consistency | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. easier to note in the combat UI, easier for the AI....just better I think.
[Vote] - (5-61) Historic Event tourism amount change | CivFanatics Forums
No, for a few reasons. I honestly still don't fully understand the changes here, but I think its going to be a nerf overall. Having tried a few CV games lately, I think the nerfs we have already put in place have worked well, CVs are a lot harder to pull off then I am used to seeing. I don't think further nerfs are needed.
[Vote] - (5-62) City-states don't ask for units that can be upgraded | CivFanatics Forums
Yes...I do think this is an exploit of the system and is good to remove it.
[Vote] - (5-64) Change Incan Terrace Farm name | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Honestly the name isn't that important to me, I do like removing farm from a UI, just less risk of confusion.
[Vote] - (5-65) Re-proposal: Integrate Tourism process as an Order Ideology | CivFanatics Forums
No. Still a no on this one, I don't like the change to GLF. Ultimately it looks like it will pass and I will certainly give it a go, but I don't like the mouthfeel right now and I am concerned about exploiting this with the cooperation ITR belief.
[Vote] - (5-66) Syncretism Belief rework | CivFanatics Forums
No. I actually like the concept here, but doing a little math in my head this seems like it might be a pretty big nerf in the key prod and science yields. Yes you get more gold....and might even get more faith (more debatable) but its definately weaker unless you do a lot of active spread. I personally like religious optiosn that don't require spreads to be useful, and I think this change takes one of those off the list.
[Vote] - (5-67) Number of spies and Shadow Networks balance | CivFanatics Forums
No. While this appears more a QoL at first glance, it actually adds a LOT of new spies to the core game....and I do not think we need more spies with the current espionage system.
[Vote] - (5-68) Change Spy Experience mechanic | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Just makes sense.
[Vote] - (5-69) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 1: Global quests | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I agree the timers aren't needed for these quests.
[Vote] - (5-71) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 3: Find a Natural Wonder | CivFanatics Forums
No. I do agree with the sanity check, but there could be cases where I don't have any natural wonders in my pre-caravel era available, but now I have a quest that can linger for a long time until I'm finally able to explore the map.
[Vote] - (5-72) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 4: Bully CS | CivFanatics Forums
No. There are many times I don't want to bully a CS, in which case this quest just lingers for a loooooooong time.
[Vote] - (5-73) Goddess of Protection rework | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to proposal A or Nay. I am pretty good with Goddess of protection as is, however, the idea of swapping the healing bonus for much faster wall production....its an interesting idea. I don't like the OG proposal, I don't think it generates enough faith to be competitive for founding.
[Vote] - (5-74) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 5: Denounce or declare war on civ | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Good solid new conditions added here.
[Vote] - (5-75) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 6: Liberate CS | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. This one I think has enough extra conditions that we can remove the timer without a problem.
[Vote] - (5-76) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 7: Spy on civ | CivFanatics Forums
STRONG NO! the problem is not that the quest timer is too short, the quest has far too few yields for doing 2+ spy missions in a civ right now. This quest needs to be altered, changing the timer is a bad bandaid that actually makes a garbage quest I don't want to just linger around longer.
[Vote] - (5-77) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 8: Coup CS | CivFanatics Forums
No. again sometimes I don't want to spy time to coup a CS and would rather the quest reset to something else. I consider the timeframe part of the push. If the coup chance isn't high enough, you need to augment with diplo influence.
[Vote] - (5-79) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 9: Conquer city | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to proposal A. I really think a timer needs to stay on this one, but the other cleanups are solid and this version takes care of that.
[Vote] - (5-80) Change find player CS quest | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Ultimately having stewed this one over I do think its a marked improvement over the quest it replaces. Will help remove an exploit in the game as well.
[Vote] - (5-81) Teocalli - Remove Era Scaling | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. We really need to reign in the teocalli, and this should do the job.
[Vote] - (5-83) Replace current AI experience handicaps for one that works only vs humans | CivFanatics Forums
No. Honestly I'm really loathe to change difficulty values, it took such a long time to stabalize them. I think we would need a stronger rationale to do it.
[Vote] - (5-84) France UA/UI Rework+Changes and Hunnic UA/UU/UI Rework+Changes | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I've really enjoyed beta testing these two, and I've enjoyed both civs more after the change.
[Vote] - (5-85) Buffing Venice's Piazza San Marco, Murano Glassworks, and Arsenale di Venezia | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain. I don't play enough Venice to comment.
[Vote] - (5-86) Tradition's Ceremony Buff, Majesty/Splendor Adjustment | CivFanatics Forums
No. So here is what happens with this proposal. I will now always take splendor over majesty (because its still the better policy). Except now I will get less growth at the beginning and have a merchant slot instead of a writer slot (which is a bit weaker imo). So overall the best option is now a weaker option compared to what we have now. Oh, and the +25% national wonder bonus is super niche and unneeded imo.
[Vote] - (5-87): Buffing Moais | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I do think the -1 BGP points are a little clunky, because frankly who cares about border growth speed at this point in the game, but the overall change I think is a solid net positive.
[Vote] - (5-89) Proposal: Great People no longer have a gold maintenance cost | CivFanatics Forums
No. I don't see reason to waste a devs time with such a change.
[Vote] - (5-90) Rebalance National Wonder base production cost | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I think this will address a lot of the issues we see right now with national wonder costs. the late game ones might be a bit too much, but I think its a good start and we can continue to tweak if needed.
[Vote] - (5-91) Make "Enable Research Agreements" and "No Tech Trading" the default settings (Special Supermajority Vote) | CivFanatics Forums
Hard NO on this one.
[Vote] - (5-92) Change Drill Line Bonuses | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I'm excited by this one. I really do think the drill base bonuses are too tied to City Assault to be effective. This will make the core promotions better at their core function.
[Vote] - (5-93) Change Unit Captured Mechanic | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I think this will make captured units more palatable, and reduce the "capture then immediately lose" element we see a lot of right now.
[Vote] - (5-94) Addition of Galley Unit, adjustment to Naval Ships | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I actually changed my vote on this one several times. I am worried the galley will be too weak to justify its hammers, and it will just mean I have a crappier naval unit until philosophy or that I only build luburnas. However, I do like the idea of getting some military power with the north tree, so the idea of going power north side for a strong navy, and southside for a strong land, has an appeal to me, and I'm willing to try it.
[Vote] - (5-01) Proposal: Chichen Itza provides a free Teocalli. | CivFanatics Forums
No - I don't mind the idea, but Chichen is a strong wonder right now that needs no buffs. If this was paired with a slight buff, sure, otherwise, I don't think a straight up buff is needed.
[Vote] - (5-03) Medic I/II Adjustments | CivFanatics Forums
No - I was tempted by proposal A here, as I do think medic could use a soft nerf, but this one is just a bit too much for melee units.
[Vote] - (5-04) Nerf Wall of Babylon | CivFanatics Forums
Yes - I still don't know if the global GS boosting bonuses is salvageable, it may just always be too good, but this is a clear step in the right direction and definately needed.
[Vote] - (5-05) Nerf God of War proposals | CivFanatics Forums
Yes for OG. Proposal A was tempting here, but ultimately I am not sure if its a true nerf or not all said and done. More XP (almost 100% more) on a kill is a big bonus. Ultimately the OG proposal is a clean and simple nerf.
[Vote] - (5-06) Statue of Zeus / Terracotta Army Changes | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to OG. I think this maintains the spirit of the "free worker" we gave the wonder but in a more interesting "warmonger" kind of way. The other change I don't know if it really improves things or not.
[Vote] - (5-07) Brute Force and Difficulty Barbarian Bonus rescaling | CivFanatics Forums
No - I've had none of the issues people using as justification for this change. I never look at spearman and think they are never worth upgrading warriors to. Its always a question of tech, if I get to bronze working than I'm absolutely getting spears. So I don't think a change is necessary here, frankly I didn't think giving spears brute force was needed either.
[Vote] - (5-10) Simplify Hacienda | CivFanatics Forums
No. At the end of the day, I don't think this proposal "simplifies" anything, not really. And in some ways it makes the building weaker unless you can get the key needed adjacencies, again founding those combos even more important to the use of the building.
[Vote] - (5-11) Feitoria changes | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to OG and A. I agree the adjacencies here are vestigial and replacing them with a slightly stronger core just makes the buildign better. And then having more canal options, that is just fun for a water focused civ like Portugal.
[Vote] - (5-12) Polder changes | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to OG. The A proposal....ultimately adjacencies have to create some interesting decisions or at least fun builds. Villages have enough going on with them to make them useful that forcing them to work with the polder too I think is overkill.
I do think this is the last buff the polder will need, they have recieved several boosts in the last few versions and are moving from a pretty ho hum UI to a very good one.
[Vote] - (5-13) America 3 Wonder & Slater Mill changes | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain - Having doen enough America plays after the last set of changes to really have a strong opinion.
[Vote] - (5-15) Add 2 Horses to Circus Maximus | CivFanatics Forums
Yes - I think people like some guaranteed strategics, seem to work well for the iron works.
[Vote] - (5-16) Polish Ducal Stable nerf | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Polands needs a nerf and this is a simple and easy one. Probably won't be enough to do the job, but its a perfectly good start.
[Vote] - (5-18) Ancient Ruin changes | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain. I haven't played with ruins in a while now, so I don't have a good opinion.
[Vote] - (5-19) Reduce faith cost increase with Eras | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to OG. Proposal A focused on just alternate faith uses, but I do think the era scaling on basic faith units could use some pull back as well.
[Vote] - (5-20): Barbarian Swordsman Buff | CivFanatics Forums
No. Barbs are already quite scary nowadays, I don't see the need for this. Barb units are weaker than regular ones, nothing wrong with that. Swords in camps are already pretty annoying to deal with.
[Vote] - (5-21) Chariot Archers and all its replacements should receive Skirmisher Doctrine + Hand-axeman Rework | CivFanatics Forums
No. If this was just the main unit change, I could see it, but I think skirmisher type barbs are SUPER ANNOYING, and I don't want to encourage them.
[Vote] - (5-22): Denmark changes | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain - Considered this one a lot but I just don't play Denmark enough to really know how much this changes things.
[Vote] - (5-23) Divine Teachings should lets you faith-purchase Libraries and buffs them. | CivFanatics Forums
Yes - seems a no-brainer to improve a weak belief.
[Vote] - (5-24) Japan Nerf Proposals | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to OG. Ultimately I think this is a solid nerf that leaves Japan relatively unchanged in concept. That said, I do think B for me will stay on the table as a concept if we continue to learn that Japan needs more nerfs and really just can't handle the AI xp imbalances with its current UA.
[Vote] - (5-25) Withdraw From Melee Changes | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to b or c.
[Vote] - (5-26) Withdrawing From Melee Units Take Protected Civilians/Embarked Units With Them | CivFanatics Forums
Yes - seems a gimme idea to me.
[Vote] - (5-27) Tribute Changes (PT 1 - Adjustment of Tribute Modifiers) | CivFanatics Forums
Yes please!
[Vote] - (5-28) Tribute Changes (Pt 2 - Gold Adjustments, New "Quest Yields" Tribute | CivFanatics Forums
Yes please!
[Vote] - (5-29) Organization (Progress Policy) Nerf | CivFanatics Forums
Yes - a minor nerf to try and curtail a little bit of the wide concern people have expressed.
[Vote] - (5-30) Austria UA Change | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to A and B. Really had to think about this one. Ultimately a lot of people were very concered about the OG's extra boost to quests, thinking this was "crazy strong". I'll admit I really didn't think that bonus was that great, but I'm willing to lean on the community on that one, as the goal to me with a civ as obviously strong as Austria is it shoudl be an absolutely clear nerf. If people are debating if the change is "more a nerf or a buff" than we aren't doing it right imo.
B has the strongest leaning from me, its clean, simple, cuts to the heart of the issue. And if its too strong we can always gladly give Austria a buff somewhere else (likely her coffeehouse). I would also be ok with A is people really want the votes to remain in some fashion, as a 2/3s nerf of the mechanic is still a very strong push in that direction.
I'm not a big fan of the era scaling for c and d, and the double vote embassy of d feels like it still could be just too strong in the hands of a good austria player, who already is going to have early GDs through their bonuses.
[Vote] - (5-31) Nerf God of Stars and Sky | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I do think this is a good middle ground from some of the nerfs we have tried before (which turned out to be too harsh) as this leaves teh founding speed intact. I do think the pantheon is an S-tier one and so could use a reduction.
[Vote] - (5-33) Golden Age Removal Series: Increase the cost of Golden Ages | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to proposal A. I do think the first GA is too soon, but the 2nd one is usually pretty reasonable, so this is a good proposal to handle that.
[Vote] - (5-35) Golden Age Removal Series: Remove GAPs from luxury monopoly resources | CivFanatics Forums
No. I think this one pushes the envelope too far. I'm up for some removables, but I think monopolies are special enough to allow it.
[Vote] - (5-36) Golden Age Removal Series: Remove GAPs from Artistry Policy Tree | CivFanatics Forums
Yes.....though I really do not like all that extra faith from the great writing. I am greatly worried that is going to slam on Fealty's niche, and likely I will propose something different for that in a future congress if this passes. But the vast majority of this I'm willing to try out, so I'll go with a begrudging yes on this one.
[Vote] - (5-37) Golden Age Removal Series: Remove GAP from Mastery Belief | CivFanatics Forums
No, I think this is niche enough to allow GAP as a yield.
[Vote] - (5-38) Proposal: Buff Mongolia UU and UB | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain, haven't played enough Mongols in a while to comment.
[Vote] - (5-39) Patriotic War (Order) - All units healed -> units within 3 tiles of city. | CivFanatics Forums
Yes Please!
[Vote] - (5-40) T-34 - Armor Plating II removal | CivFanatics Forums
Yes please!
[Vote] - (5-41) Rationalism Reordering | CivFanatics Forums
No. To me a key notion of the proposal's rationale was that Rationalism was too front loaded. Now its true that the tree is currently front loaded, but do I think that's a bad thing? I mean....I don't consider rationalism an OP tree, I picked Imperalism and Industry plenty, it just depends on what I need. Further, I think strategies that want to cheery pick from a few policies in each tree should be encouraged....as that creates a lot more interesting options than just which tree am I going to pick. So ultimately I don't see the benefit of this change.
[Vote] - (5-42) Heavily Charged Units Take Protected Civilians/Embarked Units With Them | CivFanatics Forums
No. to me this is a benefit of having the heavy charge promotion.
[Vote] - (5-43) Changes to Unit/Building Maintenance Cost Scaling | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain. I'm just really unsure about this one. I'm a bit nervous about it because I actually think gold is very competitive in a lot of late game scenarios right now (though there are games where gold is incredible fluid, I have seen gold scarcity in many games). And I feel like this scenario might reduce overall gold costs in some ways and increase it with others, and I'm not really sure where it will ultimately end up.
[Vote] - (5-44) Shoshone UA change | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to A. As a player who doesn't use ancient ruins myself, I think its great to have a way to give Shoshone that ruin packaging in a way that isolates it to the civ and doesnt' expose the rest of the civs. I think that's great, and this version is a lot cleaner than the OG proposal to me in its implementation.
[Vote] - (5-45) Changes to Cossack's Withering Fire promotion | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to proposal A. I think having withdraws on a skirimisher unit is a bit strange to begin. This idea of them being able to pounce on a restricted unit feels a lot more interesting to me.
[Vote] - (5-46) Change text of ancient building, the "lodge", to represent a "smokehouse" | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain, I literally don't care.
[Vote] - (5-48) Russia UA buff | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Honestly this is more correcting an oversight when we made teh BGP change than a true balance adjustment.
[Vote] - (5-44) God of the Expanse BuffNOTE: This proposal had a math error that triggered a key change to the proposal. As such, voting has been reset. Original discussion thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/5-rd-god-of-expanse-buff.684523/ VP Congress: Session 5, Proposal 44 Current situation God of the Expanse...
forums.civfanatics.com
|
[Vote] - (5-50) Liberating CS gives you a +100 resting influence | CivFanatics Forums
Yes Please!
[Vote] - (5-51) Stadium nerf | CivFanatics Forums
Yes, this is an easy way to remove some GAP without really affecting the balance of the building.
[Vote] - (5-52) India nerf | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. India did get a big crazy after the last change, this helps tone them back, we will see if its enough.
[Vote] - (5-53) Unit Capture consistency | CivFanatics Forums
No. While I love the idea of removing the random element, I think this is ultimately too abusable as written.
[Vote] - (5-54) New Skirmisher Pickable Promotion: Envelopment | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. A cool idea, definitely want to try it.
[Vote] - (5-55) New Recon line promotion: Frogman | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I'm willing to try, though honestly I don't think it will see much use. I'm not sure how much use recon units have in the water compared to amphibious infantry, and special forces gets amphibious anyway (SF probably should have gotten this promotion as a part of the proposal)
[Vote] - (5-56) New Recon line promotion: Screening | CivFanatics Forums
No. I am strong believer in the niche protection we created for skirmishers, and so it feels like we are letting recon units push in on that niche needlessly. You want double flanking you should be making skirmishers not recon units.
[Vote] - (5-57) Remove GAP from the AI handicap triggers | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. seems in the spirit with the GAP bonuses we remove from the human we are doing the same for the AI.
[Vote] - (5-58) Halve Passive Religious Pressure by War | CivFanatics Forums
No. War already stops active spread cold in its tracks, we don't need to reduce passive spread as well. Ultimately passive spread is the reward for being active in the early spread game, you shouldn't then get punished even more when your neighbor wars with you.
[Vote] - (5-59) "Gift specific unit" Quest reworked | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to proposal A. I do not want to nerf the rewards for this quest, while yes once in a while the rewards are high enough to be a "gimme" that is often not the case. This version I think reduces some of the exploits of insta buying a unit to accomplish it, which is enough for me.
[Vote] - (5-60) Heavy Charge consistency | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. easier to note in the combat UI, easier for the AI....just better I think.
[Vote] - (5-61) Historic Event tourism amount change | CivFanatics Forums
No, for a few reasons. I honestly still don't fully understand the changes here, but I think its going to be a nerf overall. Having tried a few CV games lately, I think the nerfs we have already put in place have worked well, CVs are a lot harder to pull off then I am used to seeing. I don't think further nerfs are needed.
[Vote] - (5-62) City-states don't ask for units that can be upgraded | CivFanatics Forums
Yes...I do think this is an exploit of the system and is good to remove it.
[Vote] - (5-64) Change Incan Terrace Farm name | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Honestly the name isn't that important to me, I do like removing farm from a UI, just less risk of confusion.
[Vote] - (5-65) Re-proposal: Integrate Tourism process as an Order Ideology | CivFanatics Forums
No. Still a no on this one, I don't like the change to GLF. Ultimately it looks like it will pass and I will certainly give it a go, but I don't like the mouthfeel right now and I am concerned about exploiting this with the cooperation ITR belief.
[Vote] - (5-66) Syncretism Belief rework | CivFanatics Forums
No. I actually like the concept here, but doing a little math in my head this seems like it might be a pretty big nerf in the key prod and science yields. Yes you get more gold....and might even get more faith (more debatable) but its definately weaker unless you do a lot of active spread. I personally like religious optiosn that don't require spreads to be useful, and I think this change takes one of those off the list.
[Vote] - (5-67) Number of spies and Shadow Networks balance | CivFanatics Forums
No. While this appears more a QoL at first glance, it actually adds a LOT of new spies to the core game....and I do not think we need more spies with the current espionage system.
[Vote] - (5-68) Change Spy Experience mechanic | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Just makes sense.
[Vote] - (5-69) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 1: Global quests | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I agree the timers aren't needed for these quests.
[Vote] - (5-71) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 3: Find a Natural Wonder | CivFanatics Forums
No. I do agree with the sanity check, but there could be cases where I don't have any natural wonders in my pre-caravel era available, but now I have a quest that can linger for a long time until I'm finally able to explore the map.
[Vote] - (5-72) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 4: Bully CS | CivFanatics Forums
No. There are many times I don't want to bully a CS, in which case this quest just lingers for a loooooooong time.
[Vote] - (5-73) Goddess of Protection rework | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to proposal A or Nay. I am pretty good with Goddess of protection as is, however, the idea of swapping the healing bonus for much faster wall production....its an interesting idea. I don't like the OG proposal, I don't think it generates enough faith to be competitive for founding.
[Vote] - (5-74) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 5: Denounce or declare war on civ | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Good solid new conditions added here.
[Vote] - (5-75) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 6: Liberate CS | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. This one I think has enough extra conditions that we can remove the timer without a problem.
[Vote] - (5-76) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 7: Spy on civ | CivFanatics Forums
STRONG NO! the problem is not that the quest timer is too short, the quest has far too few yields for doing 2+ spy missions in a civ right now. This quest needs to be altered, changing the timer is a bad bandaid that actually makes a garbage quest I don't want to just linger around longer.
[Vote] - (5-77) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 8: Coup CS | CivFanatics Forums
No. again sometimes I don't want to spy time to coup a CS and would rather the quest reset to something else. I consider the timeframe part of the push. If the coup chance isn't high enough, you need to augment with diplo influence.
[Vote] - (5-79) Change CS quest expiry conditions Part 9: Conquer city | CivFanatics Forums
Yes to proposal A. I really think a timer needs to stay on this one, but the other cleanups are solid and this version takes care of that.
[Vote] - (5-80) Change find player CS quest | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. Ultimately having stewed this one over I do think its a marked improvement over the quest it replaces. Will help remove an exploit in the game as well.
[Vote] - (5-81) Teocalli - Remove Era Scaling | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. We really need to reign in the teocalli, and this should do the job.
[Vote] - (5-83) Replace current AI experience handicaps for one that works only vs humans | CivFanatics Forums
No. Honestly I'm really loathe to change difficulty values, it took such a long time to stabalize them. I think we would need a stronger rationale to do it.
[Vote] - (5-84) France UA/UI Rework+Changes and Hunnic UA/UU/UI Rework+Changes | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I've really enjoyed beta testing these two, and I've enjoyed both civs more after the change.
[Vote] - (5-85) Buffing Venice's Piazza San Marco, Murano Glassworks, and Arsenale di Venezia | CivFanatics Forums
Abstain. I don't play enough Venice to comment.
[Vote] - (5-86) Tradition's Ceremony Buff, Majesty/Splendor Adjustment | CivFanatics Forums
No. So here is what happens with this proposal. I will now always take splendor over majesty (because its still the better policy). Except now I will get less growth at the beginning and have a merchant slot instead of a writer slot (which is a bit weaker imo). So overall the best option is now a weaker option compared to what we have now. Oh, and the +25% national wonder bonus is super niche and unneeded imo.
[Vote] - (5-87): Buffing Moais | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I do think the -1 BGP points are a little clunky, because frankly who cares about border growth speed at this point in the game, but the overall change I think is a solid net positive.
[Vote] - (5-89) Proposal: Great People no longer have a gold maintenance cost | CivFanatics Forums
No. I don't see reason to waste a devs time with such a change.
[Vote] - (5-90) Rebalance National Wonder base production cost | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I think this will address a lot of the issues we see right now with national wonder costs. the late game ones might be a bit too much, but I think its a good start and we can continue to tweak if needed.
[Vote] - (5-91) Make "Enable Research Agreements" and "No Tech Trading" the default settings (Special Supermajority Vote) | CivFanatics Forums
Hard NO on this one.
[Vote] - (5-92) Change Drill Line Bonuses | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I'm excited by this one. I really do think the drill base bonuses are too tied to City Assault to be effective. This will make the core promotions better at their core function.
[Vote] - (5-93) Change Unit Captured Mechanic | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I think this will make captured units more palatable, and reduce the "capture then immediately lose" element we see a lot of right now.
[Vote] - (5-94) Addition of Galley Unit, adjustment to Naval Ships | CivFanatics Forums
Yes. I actually changed my vote on this one several times. I am worried the galley will be too weak to justify its hammers, and it will just mean I have a crappier naval unit until philosophy or that I only build luburnas. However, I do like the idea of getting some military power with the north tree, so the idea of going power north side for a strong navy, and southside for a strong land, has an appeal to me, and I'm willing to try it.
Last edited:
