VP Congress 6: Stalker0's Voting Record

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
10,864
Lets dig in on Session 6 of the congress!!!

--Nay. While I do like removing randomness, I think this is too easy for the human to abuse over the AI, and I don't think captured units need strengthening, the mechanic is already quite powerful.

--Yes to A (add 1 Tr, remove from corp). I am fine with overall having the same TRs and making it less corp reliant, seems reasonable.

--Abstain, don't really have a strong thought here.

--No, don't see a good reason for that.

--Yes, really can't see a reason not to.

--B (basic global pool) or E (elite unit). I like the elite unit as the most fun, but if we do want to keep the xp system I think B is the best flavor of it.

--B (remove maintenance, guild bonuses). I think this is the cleanest change that removes yield bloat and streamlines these buildings.

--No. I think the current art is perfectly good, and the updated art models don't really add anything to me.

--OG option. I really don't like proposal A, which uses the percentage of population converted. To me all that does is create tourism glut with no real gameplay distinctiveness. while it does mean that religious push is rewarded, it also means any general religious mixing is rewarded. The OG proposal keeps the spirit of the original mechanic, which is "if you convert me, you get a bonus". The og version provides that by focusing on a city by city basis, you still need to convert to get the bonus, but its still much easier to do than the current way of getting the tourism bonus.

--Yes or No. I think this is a slight improvement but at the same time I think the current scenario where a monopoly gets stolen is so rare in SP that I just don't care all that much.

--Yes. seems a gimme can't see why not.

--Yes. This feels like more of an oversight with the original implementation, I think this was always how the new "CV focused buildings" were meant to work.

--B (gross gold but reduced). I do like the idea but do agree gross can be much higher than net, so I think a more cautious approach is fine here.

--B (no nukes period). I say keep it simple. WC proposals are powerful, if you want to just lock out nukes entirely, I say go for it.

--Yes. This feels more like QoL as I don't think it will come up nearly as much as people might think but I do think its good to give those late game border growth bonuses something to do.

--Abstain for now, I'm not fully sure I understand how this works.

--Yes. Come on you know you want to:)

--OG. Proposal B is a buff not a nerf, and GoW needs a nerf.

--Goddess of Wisdom Change + Manufactory Buff change + Earlier forge (leaving chopping alone). I admin that I still take bronze working less than I do north side, so one more incentive to go there seems prudent. I don't see the need to remove incentive by weakening chopping, so I would leave that alone. Even with that change I still think Goddess of Wisdom could use a change (the forge change doesn't fix the fact that its a science pantheon that really can't wait for scientists), and I still think manufactories could use some love in the later game.

--A (palace gives more science, less culture, more faith for stoneworks). I've come around to this version over my OG version. I do think we have few pantheon that push early science, so this gives it an interesting niche and I agree faster teching may ultimately help this pantheon get to where it needs to be.

--OG. I am pretty ok with either of these proposals. I think B's orthodoxy change feels a bit more ad hoc, but I think they are both reasonable idea and I would ultimately try either one.

--No. I like a lot of the ideas in this proposal but I think its just too much raw tourism. Tourism is such a tricky yield because its completely useless....until its the most powerful yield in the game. I think this one goes too hard core on tourism, especially for how early its generates.

--Yes. I think it makes the game a bit more fair so willing to try it.

--No. I understand the desire but there are probably cleaner ways to address this issue.

--C (ivory because special resource like marble). I think this is the simpliest way to ensure more consistent ivory on the board without wholesale changing up entire map generations.

--Yes. Now I do think this one without era scaling is a bit too weak, but I do think the coup quests really needs to be adjusted, so I'm willing to accept a "weak" version of this quest until the next congress.

--No. This doesn't solve the coal problem to me. We need MORE COAL on the map, not coal further diluted and spread out.

--No. While a part of me appreciates why they want to revert this back, there are good reasons we did this that haven't really changed.

--No. I think both of these options are still missing the mark,

--Yes. one of my proposals that I still feel very good about, I think this is a solid balance suggestion that also improves pioneer use, is thematically appropriate on chemistry, and will be a pretty solid improvement to the game overall.

--Yes. Frankly for a long time I have already considered balance without events, and if that is the state that a lot of people debate than that should be the default balance assumption.

--Yes. It would be nice to have more reason to make musicians other than CV.

--A (KISS Espionage). There are things to like in all fo the new versions, but my proposals still hits the sweet spot for me. Ultimately to me, this vote is less about getting the most mechanically solid proposal (frankly any of them is almost automatically going to require tweaking and adjustment), its about deciding on the direction of espionage. Do you want spying to remain indepth and complex like it is now, revert to strong but simple system like KISS, or remove most spy benefits in favor of very simple spies focusing on Intelligence.

--Hmm still debating this one.

--Yes, another gimme one to me.

--A (caravansary bonus to villages/town). Honestly I think all 3 of these proposals are reasonable buffs to this building. I personally like the focus on villages as I don't think they scale enough so that fixes 2 birds in one, but I'm pretty open to any of them.

--No. I see no purpose in this, villages are in a fine place techwise.

--No. I do think there is some interesting things here, but the complete removal of city attacking is a mistake...building ships just for anti ship combat (when I already have melee ships designed for anti-ship combat) just means some unit is going to get screwed and not built. When I have ranged ships that can attack land and sea and cities, why would I build subs? if subs are just so strong int he anti-ship role....why build melee ships?

--None. I think most of these miss the mark by a lot. Proposal A is the closest, and I almost voted for it, but the idea that my pathfinders can't get ZOC is a tough pill to swallow (you just don't always have the luxury of bringing that first unit back for an upgrade).

--No. The idea might be interesting or even desirable, but this is way too strong a change. If you want garrison takings a few extra points of damage maybe. but this version often doubles the garrison damage. That is a HUGE HUGE HUGE impact to city defense, it can literally half the time it takes to conquer cities. Its too much.

--A (equally likely CS traits, but not forced into a hard bucket). I think randomness here is perfectly fine, proposal A I think will create a bit more consistency but won't straightjacket anything.

--No. I don't see any desire to have a straightjacket on CS spawns, that randomness is part of the fun.

--None. I am not a fan of any of the pressure weakening, I haven't really seen a good argument on how passive pressure is too oppressive right now (it certainly doesn't feel that way to me in most games I play). I agree with PADs rationale for a Notre Dame change, but this feels like a nerf overall imo. if this was combined with something else I could see it.

--Abstain. I don't use other mapscripts all that often and so don't have a strong opinion.

--None. This feels like a much ado about nothing scenario. I have not seen an issue where these tenents are skyrocketing one civ into the stratosphere. I don't think the AI stats show that our likely UI civs are all top tier because these tenents exist, etc.

--Yes. I really think this will improve late game DV, DVs will no longer be as "all or nothing" as they feel right now.

--Yes. seems reasonable, I doubt it will move the needle very much at all but don't see any harm.

--A (treat laborers separate). I think laborers are more separate from specialists than they share in common, so would rather just complete the split.

--Yes. It is surprising right now how often agribussiness doesn't even cover its own maintenance, so I am a fan of this to give late game big food more oomph.

--Abstain for now. I am marking this one specifically because while the examples provided were helpful, I still fundamentally do not understand what the change actually DOES. I literally have no idea what I'm really voting for....do you?
--OG. There is only one proposal here that actually reduces confusion, and that's the OG. Changing autocracy to authority is a BIG MISTAKE, that will just create confusion and wrong name using for a long while...and for little benefit. Changing autocracy to might...boom, simple, easy, done, 0 confusion.

--No. I want to get tribute yields in a better state before we start tweaking the mechanics again, especially for heavy tribute which I actually wonder if its worth its cost at the moment compared to regular tribute.

--Yes. I do think heavy tribute compared to regular tribute needs some love, and this seems a reasonable way to do it.

--Yes. This removes some silly abuses of the tribute system especially in the early game, seems very reasonable.

--Yes. this gets us closer to better tribute numbers.

--Abstain. I generally refrain from city buying/selling, so I'll leave this to others.

--Yes. I think this is a cool direction for India, and addresses some of the historic issue with the civ. That said, there are potentials for abuse that will definately need to be playtested but I'm excited for this one.

--Yes. I'm noting this one specifically as one I changed my mind on with debate. I do think there are enough corner cases that this would impact to create an actual niche.

--Yes. Why not.

--No. don't see any reason for this.

--No. The balance of a civ is a COMBINATION of its elements: UA, UU, and UB all working together. Byz is a STRONG civ based on my own rankings and the AI rankings. The UB is fine, it provided a good amount of extra faith overall, and that's a key thing Byz wants. These changes are pure buff for a civ that does not need them.

--Abstain. I don't play celts enough.

--Yes. I'm not sure if this is truly the fix for siam, but I do think its a push in the right direction.

--No. I think this is the wrong direction, we already have gold issues in industrial for a lot of games, and that is long before I am hitting the supply limits. Supply is how you limit armies, it is LITERALLY the mechanic to do that. if you want to reduce large armies...use supply, its just that simple.

--No. Completely and utterly unnecessary, just a consumption of precious dev time for no good reason.

--Abstain. No strong opinion.

--Yes. do it now!!!

--Yes. I am worried this is going to be just too restrictive (aka you can only pledge CS that are right next to you), but the idea makes sense and I'm willing to play with the formula to get it right.
 
Last edited:
-B (basic global pool) or E (elite unit). I like the elite unit as the most fun, but if we do want to keep the xp system I think B is the best flavor of it.
Why should units that stay behind share the XP? They never fight or are intended to fight (see France and all of their captured units).
 
--No. I do think there is some interesting things here, but the complete removal of city attacking is a mistake...building ships just for anti ship combat (when I already have melee ships designed for anti-ship combat) just means some unit is going to get screwed and not built. When I have ranged ships that can attack land and sea and cities, why would I build subs? if subs are just so strong int he anti-ship role....why build melee ships?
Melee ships already do too much. They're anti-sub, anti-air, anti-city, and you claim they're also anti-ship. Which leaves anti-land to ranged ships and submarines are now the anti-city ship? Do they attack cities with torpedoes?

My mod kinda solves that melee/ranged issue, but I can't propose the whole thing in one go.
 
Melee ships already do too much. They're anti-sub, anti-air, anti-city, and you claim they're also anti-ship. Which leaves anti-land to ranged ships and submarines are now the anti-city ship? Do they attack cities with torpedoes?
No melee ships do as much as they need to do, which is why you build them. for a long time melee ships were garbage (because again if your not impacting land...why do I care). It took giving them a large amount of water niches to make them a good unit to build.
 
Why should units that stay behind share the XP? They never fight or are intended to fight (see France and all of their captured units).
just noting if you want me to respond to a specific note please include the proposal in the quote, there are a LOT of them.

I actually did realize my vote was wrong here, I had meant to do proposal A not B. Ultimately a unit is a unit to me, and to me a big part of france's play is bagging a few of these quests and getting their captured units to a respectable level (which I have done in several france games). I don't see a need to exclude them.
 
Late game melee ships are the spotter, the tank, the anti-sub, and the interceptor. That's enough roles for them.
I designed ranged ships to be the anti-melee (tankbuster, but just barely) and can take up either the anti-city or anti-unit role via promotions. Weak to air and submarines, so you need to intercept and tank with melee.
I designed submarines to be the anti-ranged and anti-carrier unit (which is why you always need to tank with melee). They can also harass undefended coastlines and cargo ships.
I actually did realize my vote was wrong here, I had meant to do proposal A not B. Ultimately a unit is a unit to me, and to me a big part of france's play is bagging a few of these quests and getting their captured units to a respectable level (which I have done in several france games). I don't see a need to exclude them.
Funny how you both vote against captured unit XP and vote for XP from quests to those units.
 
Funny how you both vote against captured unit XP and vote for XP from quests to those units.
Quite serious actually. one of those is wholly earned by the conquest of a city, the other is just free raw xp. One of those is hard earned, the other is not.
 
Either way, for those who treat the captured units as just passive culture, the quest is a hard nerf.
 
Regarding passive pressure, try playing a game against an AI who picks the increased passive pressure reformation(?) belief to feel how oppressive it can get. I was using the entire faith output of my civ, with a healthy god of war faith income from being at constant war to barely keep my religion in my own cities. I got bored of that game, but I have no idea how I'd ever have the extra faith to wipe out the competing religion unless I just razed half the map to the ground to push down the pressure numbers.
 
--Abstain. I don't use other mapscripts all that often and so don't have a strong opinion.
You only play Communitu?
 
--No. I like a lot of the ideas in this proposal but I think its just too much raw tourism. Tourism is such a tricky yield because its completely useless....until its the most powerful yield in the game. I think this one goes too hard core on tourism, especially for how early its generates.
I think the Sacred Sites proposal isn't much on tourism, and more on faith. For Wide, it loses tourism on Hotels in favor of having on Shrines and Temples; a +3 :tourism: tourism per city rather than a +6 :tourism:. On the other hand, It replaces wonders as sources of tourism, replacing them for Holy Sites, and lowering it from +4 :tourism: to +3 :tourism:; if you're doing good, it's easier to get 10 world wonders than to get 10 or 13 Holy Sites, which is bound to counteract the bonus tourism per city. Overall, the proposal is more about giving a Wide source of :c5faith: faith than to give it more :tourism: tourism.

--No. I do think there is some interesting things here, but the complete removal of city attacking is a mistake...building ships just for anti ship combat (when I already have melee ships designed for anti-ship combat) just means some unit is going to get screwed and not built. When I have ranged ships that can attack land and sea and cities, why would I build subs? if subs are just so strong int he anti-ship role....why build melee ships?
Submarines are stealthy and don't need to sail alongside multiple allied ships in order to survive an encounter with an enemy fleet. Which makes subs a good option for pillaging sea improvements and trade routes, as well as setting up ambushes and cirurgical strikes behind the enemy lines.

Historically, submarines were not employed for attacking cities directly, since their armament is ill-fitted for that. Torpedoes generally don't perform well near the shallow water of a city's coast even against dedicated naval facilities on the shore, and gunnery is generally absent on submarines; the few cases a sub had guns, those were of low caliber and limited to one or two barrels; not enough range and firepower to justify exposing the position of an overall unarmored vessel. Submarines would only be employed against cities directly once they're able to carry long range missiles, which the Nuclear Submarine captures with the ability to carry nukes.

Melee ships already have the role as a sturdy frontline, which submarines are not good at. These two ship types are not in danger of replacing or nullifying each other, their roles differ a lot.
 
Top Bottom