• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

VP Congress 7: Stalker0's Voting Record

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
11,020
(7-01) Make Villages Buildable on Marsh
No - I don't have a strong opinion here but I think marsh is meant to be cleared, not really "used".

(7-02) Rename Tyranny to Co-Prosperity Sphere
No - Tyranny is a more bad-ass name.

(7-03) Rename Trade Organization to Containment
Yes - This is a good name

(7-04) Autocracy Commerce Raiders Rework
Yes - I think having a tenent for water focused war is a good niche, and this looks like a cool ability, much much better than the current tenent which is quite weak.

(7-05) Aluminum Tech Requirements
Yes - No issue, seems reasonable.

(7-06) Oil and Oil Well Tech Requirement Proposals
Yes (06a). I don't see any reason oil reveals needs to be faster than its improvement, but I think this addresses any issue and honestly lets people enjoy their strategic units when they get the tech (which is pretty much always the case for every other strategic unit). And I think escalating late game war power is likely a good thing to give warmongers a bone to work with.

(7-07) Polynesian Maori Warrior Proposals
Yes (07). I think this new scout concept is pretty nifty. First, it works with Polynesia's desired tech path. And this is a strong unit that is a good support through its aura but also gains usability in the water in conjunction with polys sea focus. I think thematically and mechanically its a good fit

(7-08) Polynesian UA & UI (Moai) Proposals
Nay. None of these really hit the mark for me. I think adding culture to fighting boats is too much, adding +2 prod is too much in combo with sea pantheon which is very common for poly to take. The +20% CS aura I don't think is needed, so nothing really hit it for me.

(7-09 & 7-10) Shoshone and Huns Proposals
Yes (09a and 10). None of the shoshone changes really do anything for me, but the huns change on 09a looks reasonable to try. Revealing the ancient resources I think mainly benefits your initial capital....but honestly getting access to some horses or deer or fish on turn 1 is actually a pretty nice bonus, and not having to go southside to get iron can actually be pretty solid, so this is more UA than at first glance.

(7-11) Hospital and Medical Lab Rework Proposals
No. I think we are missing the right direction here. Just adding more science to our glut feels like the wrong solution, and we already have soooo much that helps specialists, frankly I would rather see non-specialist benefits more often.

(7-12) Change Connectivity of the Tradition Policy Tree
Yes. I don't think the optimum path changes much, but no harm in providing more flexibility here.

(7-13) CS Quest "Conduct Intelligence Ops" Restricted to 1 [Spy Update 1]
Yes. I hope this one is a gimme, it just makes sense.

(7-14) Spy XP & Leveling Proposals
Yes (14a OR 14b). at the end of the day, I think spy xp is just not needed. I think the system becomes simplier and scales better with its removal.

I originally only voted for 14a but arguments have swayed me. I think 14b is also a fine way to implement this. While I like 14a a bit better, I think both address the core problem.

(7-15) Pilfer Religious Relics Mission Proposals
Yes to either. I am ok with either attempt here, I think we need to make a push to make this mission useful, how much I leave to the consensus.

(7-16) Kidnap Specialists Mission Proposals
yes (16). I really feel strongly removing the capital restriction is the key to making this mission more generally useful. Its not just cost, its about comparing this to other missions. I did some math in a previous thread that proved to my satisfaction that a kidnap specialist mission is WAY weaker than stealing tech. I am not using this mission in capitals, but I would use it in satelittes, and I see no harm in doing so.

(7-17 & 7-18) Spy Passive Bonus Proposal & Great Leap Forward Proposals
Yes (17 and 18a). I hope the passive NP numbers are a gimme, they are just a bit too high right now. Ultimately I think 18a returns GLF to primarily a science tenent (which is its job) and removes it from just generally spy awesomeness. Even at 50% from the other proposal, it feels like GLF is too much in the spy game, and thats what double agents is for.

(7-19 & 7-20) Constabulary and Police Station Proposals (& Counterspy Buff)
Yes (19 and 20). I think this firmly clean ups security and ensure that these mechanics are doing their jobs. Const/Police are firmly security buildings, counterspies now get yields to offeset the oppurtunity cost of not using that spy for more offensive work. Its clean and easy.

(7-21) Sabotage City Production Mission Redesign Proposals
Yes (21 OR 21a). I think both of these have the right plan for the mission, its just a question of how strong we want it. I am good with either one as a starting point.

(7-22) Allow Non-Recon Units to Pick Up Ancient Ruins
No. I've gone back and forth on this a few times. Ultimately I think I like the bit of strategic play where you have to balance your scouting units actual scouting with back tracking to pick up ruins.

(7-23) Council of Elders Rebalance
No. Honestly this doesn't feel like a buff but a nerf. It pushes the yields out far too slowly, and the one thing that elders does well is give you some yields early in the game. This is just two steps back to me.

(7-24) Supply Cap Penalty Rework
No. I don't like the spiral this can bring, as food losses can lead to starvation can lead to more unhappiness. The production penalty is already the big hit this doesn't need more imo.

(7-25) Carthage Rework Proposals
Yes to 25 OR no. I honestly don't have any issues with current Carthage, I think its a perfectly fine civ. But 7-25 is at least an interesting idea and I don't mind trying it. But 25a is a HELL NO from me. I hate that idea, I think its completely up to the whims of fate and chance how many TRs you get to keep over your cap, and how lucky you get should not be the foundation of your main UA.

(7-26 & 7-27) Tradition & Fealty Scaler Proposals + Fealty Policy Rework Proposals
Yes to 26a and 27 OR 27a. I personally think the Tradition tree is supposed to be pushing growth, and so going to direct food seems the most poignant way to do it. We will see if your happiness limits ultimately prevent this from being useful, but I also think giving a faith scaler to fealty just makes sense.
I don't think any of the fealty proposals fully hit the mark, but both 27 and 27a are a small step forward in their own ways, so I could work with either.

(7-28) God of the Sea: Remove +2 Food from Coast
Yes. The pantheon is too strong, and even with this food removed I will STILL take it with any good sea start and I will still be thrilled to have it. It doesn't need to be as good as it is.

(7-29) Porcelain Tower Changeup
Yes. This wonder needs a tone-down.

(7-30 & 7-31) Summer Palace Buff & Diplomats Ignore Open Borders
Yes to 7-30. Its just a good change to SP that won't make it OP but might round it out just enough to be a solid wonder.

Now for 7-31, here's my thing. The entire reason we went to diplomatic units rather than just sending gold to CS was to make the map conditions matter. We WANTED distance and terrain and war conditions to actually matter. And so....so do rival CS blocking your access. You want access, you get open borders. Removing that just goes against the very reason we put in units in the first place imo.

(7-32) Musketman -1 CS
Yes. Do it, you know you want to!

(7-33) Skirmisher & War Chariot RCS Proposals
Yes to 33. I do think skirmishers need a little buff for how hard it is to get them out at that point in the game.

As for war chariots, I can understand that upgrading a unit but lowering its stats can feel bad. But skirmishers get skirmisher doctrine that war chariots do not, and honestly a UU that early needs some special sauce. Its so early in the tree you need a little something to stand out. With this change you'll only lose 1 CS but gain +50% RCS on defense, I think that is still a solid buff overall.

(7-34) Town Gains Culture to Mirror the Village
Yes. Do it!

(7-35) Merchant Specialist Buff Proposals
Yes to both 35 and 35a. I think merchants need a good bit of love.

(7-36) Promise Not to Attack Applies to Both Parties (Troops Near Border)
Yes. I agree this promise can be exploitive right now, I think it makes sense to create a bidding agreement here.

(7-37) Remove Faith -> Production Conversion from the Order Building
Yes. my main reason is the overlap with indulgences.

(7-38 & 7-39) Authority Rework Proposals
38 and 39. The wholesome rework is cool but I simply think its both too much of a nerf and removes any incentive to go right side of the tree first. The first proposal is just a nice simple nerf which I think is all that is needed.

The discipline change I feel is a good compromise between where we were and were we are now, I'm willing to try it.

(7-40) Progress Rework Proposals
40 OR 40b. I prefer 40 but 40b I think is a fine way to go. I do not like 40a because it nerfs the right side too much. I think progress has a really nice decision between left and right at the current time, and this proposal would disrupt that.

(7-41 & 7-42) Japanese Dojo Buff Proposals
No to all. I think Japan is just fine to me, its a fun war civ. The AI is having problems with warmongers in general right now, which I think we need to fix more holistically, but Japan themself is fine.

(7-43) Remove Notification when a City Starts WLTKD
Yes. When it comes to notifications I am fully in the "less is more" camp.

(7-44) Remove Notification When a Trade Route from Another Player is Plundered
Yes. Same as 43.

(7-45 & 7-46) Mongolian Khan & Ordo Proposals
Abstain. I don't play Mongolia enough to say.

(7-47) War Weariness and War Score Affected by Damage on Cities
Abstain for now. I have an outstanding question in the thread I want to understand this better.

(7-48) Songhai Nerf Proposals
Yes to 48. I think removing the gold is the simplest change, especially in light of this ability has never been adjusted for the huge increase in barb camps on average settings, so it seems the smartest place to attack.

(7-49) All Civs Gain City Connections Along Rivers
Yes. Lets give it a try!

(7-50) Industrial City Connections
Yes. I am cautious on this one but the community seems to like it and I can see how it solves certain problems. I am worried its going to create new ones but I'm willing to see it in action.

(7-51) Change Expiry Conditions for Gift Unit Quest
Yes. Seems like a gimme.

(7-52) Adjusting Some City-State Influence Rewards
Hell no! A few of these quests I can understand the nerfs, but this is a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel. Its way overdone.

(7-53) Landmarks in City-State Lands Grant Resting Influence Proposals
No. Honestly I don't get what the fuss is about. I make landmarks in other cities for the happiness personally, if I don't need it I get a work. Its just that simple. I don't see why all of this is needed.

(7-54) Remove CS Resting Influence Bonuses if War is Declared / City Captured
No. There are already sooooo maaaaaany penalities for warring on a CS. I don't need to remove every single influence bonus I have ever gotten. Even against major civs you don't lose every diplomatic bonus you have acquired due to war.

(7-55 & 7-56) AI Difficulty Bonus Change Proposals
Yes to 7-56. While I recognize that GP bonuses are very large right now....I don't think we have taken enough care to really know what a hard change to those bonuses would do. These are VERY LARGE CHANGES!!! Difficulty bonuses need a bit more care than that imo.

(7-57) Rename Manhattan Project to Nuclear Weapons Program
No. too iconic to change.

(7-58) Rename East India Company to Chartered Company
No. I don't want to relearn a name I have used for years and years and years just to remove flavor for some generic building. Next we will want to rename the Eiffle Tower.

(7-59 & 7-60) Spy Consecutive Election Rigging Proposals
Yes to 59a. I think 40% is a good sweet spot to start, 20% is a bit too harsh. I also do NOT decol taking out the rig bonuses. I already found that decol resets the work of your spies enough that its questionable whether you should keep rigging, and if you went back to base numbers that late in the game they are basically worthless. When i can get 150 influence with a single unit, resetting the rigs gets pitiful.

(7-61) Complete the "Complete Kills" Functionality
Abstain, no opinion.

(7-62) Ottomans Nerf
No. This feels like too much to me. I don't personally think Ottomans are a god tier civ. they are good, they aren't THAT good. I could accept a nerf, but 33% is too much.

(7-63) Sea Beggar Prerequisite Tech Change
Yes. Its time to reign in the sea beggar, it is way too good to come out so early.

(7-64) New Coastal Artillery Promotion for Cannon and Later Siege Units
Honestly sometimes late game navies are just really hard to dislodge. Having your cannon+ be able to do a bit more pain (aka +30% vs another field promo) is something I would like to try.

(7-65) Add Tourism to France's Yield Per Unit Scaler
Yes. This looks like a solid idea, though I share concern that this may be just too much tourism. But I think its a worth a look since france is soooo underperforming right now for the AI. And then we can see if it needs to be adjusted.

(7-66) Make Forts Pillageable and the Time to Repair Improvements Stop Scaling With Game Speed
Yes. seems reasonable to me.

(7-67) Tourism Modifier Cap Change
At the end of the day I don't think this changes much, just prevents one odd behavior, so seems reasonable. It does mean that civs with 25+ cities over their main opponents are going to find it much much harder to win CV, but I'm not sure how viable CV is now with empires that high

(7-68) Change AI Peace Treaty Behavior - Consistent to All Players in the Same Team
Abstain, doesn't impact me.

(7-68) Change AI Peace Treaty Behavior - Consistent to All Players in the Same Team
Yes. I do think CS conquest could use a bit of love, you really do loss a LOT of benefit when you war with CS rather than buddy up with them. The most common argument I've seen is "but they aren't CS anymore once they are conquered".

To which I reply....but you can't raze them. You can't raze them because....the game still considers than CS. Similar to when you conquer a capital, its still a capital for all sorts of reasons.

(7-70) Vassal Unit Levy Proposals
Yes to 70. When I first brought this up, it was so simple..... I just didn't want you getting crappy old obsolete units anymore because you forgot to upgrade something. I think 70a is just redesigning the tribute system, and because its based on your vassals tech levels, you can STILL GET CRAPPY UNITS!!!

Vote for simple, vote 70!

(7-71) Remove Unit Upgrade Discount and Some Building Science from Military-Industrial Complex
I keep going back and forth on this one. MIC is a very strong tenent but its also kind of the economic foundation of Autocracy. This is a very large nerf.

(7-72) Purchase Cost Reduction Rework Proposals
NO!!!! Until someone can show me some charts on how much or how little this changes costs compared to what we have today I am not willing to change this. When we did it with BGP we had lots of data to look at. For these we have had none. No way jose!

(7-73) "To the Glory of God" Belief Buff
Um, buff to TTGOG....hehe....hahahahahah....no

(7-74) Spain Tweaks... Again
Yes. This is how you tweak a civ. Everything here makes the civ tighter, simpler to understand, but just better at what Spain needs to do. Chef's Kiss.

(7-75) Giant Death Robots Standalone, Limited to 2 & Cost More
Yes. So people might laugh this one off as "who cares that late in the game"?

Well I care. I actually play a number of late game wars, and let me tell you, mass GDRs change everything. They aren't just an upgrade over modern armor, its like having 2 units in one. I do think they could use some curbing of their power.

(7-76 & 7-77) Mayan Kuna & Atlatlist Proposals
Both 76 and 77. I think both of these are good needed nerfs for the Mayan. Especially the Atlatist CS, its pretty crazy how high it is right now.

(7-78) Standardize City Tile Yields
Yes. For just intuitive sense I think this is better. That said, the ability to get resource bonuses on city settle might turn out to be quite a big change, moreso than people might think.

(7-79) Make Special Forces Cheaper
Yes. Once it was pointed out that they are more expensive than a heavy bomber....yeah a cost reduction seems perfectly reasonable.

(7-80) Bomb Rack, Aerial Torpedo Buffs
No. Planes already stack on tons of promotions as they never die with good use. This promotions don't beat air repair (and probably never will) but they are sitll good promos to stack on top of an air repair fighter.

(7-81) Hand-Axe Buff (+1 CS and +1 RCS)
No. With so many barbs out there nowadays, honestly I appreciate that once in a while I get a crappy barb that I can curb stomp. The barbs are strong enough!!!

(7-82) Fill In Scouting Promotions with Water Equivalents
Yes. Seems reasonable.

(7-83) Korea Nerf
Abstain, don't play Korea that often.

(7-84) Lebensraum Rework
Yes. First, I actually like that I can raze a city and the AI cannot immediately resettle the EXACT same spot. But beyond that this seems to maintain the spirit of carving up territory with the OG leben but not in as broken a way. Solid idea.

(7-85) Alert When AI's Non-Expansion Agreement Has Expired
No. Not a big deal to me, I just don't want more notifications.

(7-86) God of the Sun Tweak Proposals
Yes to 86a. Sun needs a buff, this is a reasonable one. In the main thread for this I noted that I don't think this is out of line with other pantheons at all, in fact it still might be underpowered but at least its the right direction. The first version 86 I think is just completely missing the mark on what Sun needs.

(7-87) Rename Oxford University Proposals
No. I don't need to learn new names.

(7-88) New Supermajority Vote Threshold
70%. I think that is a solid number but is still more obtainable than what we have now.
 
Last edited:
. I think its actually makes a useful organization religion proposal, wheres 27 I actually feel is just an overall nerf.
Are you confusing 27 for 27a? 27a is the one that looks like a nerf to me.

27, Hokath's proposal just adds more bonuses and makes existing ones stronger. It increases the culture from happiness from 25% to 50% and adds tourism on top.
27a, Azum's proposal rearranges major bonuses like replacing +1 :c5faith: to specialists with 1:c5faith: per 4 non-specialists. and replaces the scaling happiness converter for a flat +4 :c5culture: to buildings
Now for 7-31, here's my thing. The entire reason we went to diplomatic units rather than just sending gold to CS was to make the map conditions matter. We WANTED distance and terrain and war conditions to actually matter. And so....so do rival CS blocking your access. You want access, you get open borders. Removing that just goes against the very reason we put in units in the first place imo.
Agreed on this one. I think making all diplomats ignore terrain from the beginning scuttles a major component of the diplo game.
It also undermines a key reason for having open borders agreements. Maybe instead of trying to change rules so players can get around borders, people should actually use the mechanics already available to them?
 
Are you confusing 27 for 27a? 27a is the one that looks like a nerf to me.

27, Hokath's proposal just adds more bonuses and makes existing ones stronger. It increases the culture from happiness from 25% to 50% and adds tourism on top.
27a, Azum's proposal rearranges major bonuses like replacing +1 :c5faith: to specialists with 1:c5faith: per 4 non-specialists. and replaces the scaling happiness converter for a flat +4 :c5culture: to buildings
Your right, Hokath's proposal is better than I had thought. I still like Azum's a little better, but I would probably be fine trying either of this. I will amend.
 
Your right, Hokath's proposal is better than I had thought.
😘

(7-23) Council of Elders Rebalance
No. Honestly this doesn't feel like a buff but a nerf. It pushes the yields out far too slowly, and the one thing that elders does well is give you some yields early in the game. This is just two steps back to me.
In the thread you said you didn't like how the window of applicability is so low. You really think this is too far in the other direction?
 
27a, Azum's proposal rearranges major bonuses like replacing +1 :c5faith: to specialists with 1:c5faith: per 4 non-specialists. and replaces the scaling happiness converter for a flat +4 :c5culture: to buildings
Buffing Fealty is never my plan (it's not too weak). The point is to buff the side policies just enough that you would want to pick them rather than opening another tree, as well as focusing the tree on non-specialists instead of all citizens. Which is why the weak converter is replaced by constant yields, and the specialist faith is replaced by non-specialist faith in similar amounts.
 
Replacing unique mechanics with building yield changes is always going to get a no from me.
 
Even if the unique mechanic basically equates flat yields? Happiness (not unhappiness!) isn't that controllable, and the yield rounds down.

Just thought of something "unique":
If no boredom in the city, gain +4 :c5culture:.

Too late for proposal though.
 
unique mechanic
I also just realized that it's tall-favored, since the main happiness sources (ex: luxuries, difficulty-dependent baseline) are empire-wide, and get divided by number of cities
 
It's direct yields but they scale over the course of the game (and with other factors), different to just +4 culture from early buildings, which is more front-loaded.
In terms of tall-favoured I'm not sure. Rounding issues to one side, the number to care about is total happiness in cities, which might actually be higher in wide? (because you can build more +happiness buildings like grocer, etc)
 
why are you (and azum) talking about unhappiness here? Supply =/= happiness
if the proposal passes you can get a penalty on food rather than growth from oversupply. food penalties can trigger starvation = city gets unhappy
 
Most people are underestimating what a negative food (or global gold) modifier can do. There's a reason it doesn't exist in the game.
 
The +20% CS aura I don't think is needed
You don't think they have a problem holding their own cities? You also want to change the UU to a Scout, which will thin out the already spread out supply even more.
 
Please reconsider 7-44. I think it'll lead to confusion and someone's going to report on Github that barbarians in/near their territory suddenly multiply.
 
(7-54) Remove CS Resting Influence Bonuses if War is Declared / City Captured
No. There are already sooooo maaaaaany penalities for warring on a CS. I don't need to remove every single influence bonus I have ever gotten. Even against major civs you don't lose every diplomatic bonus you have acquired due to war.
Reminder that this only happens if you actively declare war on a CS.
For a human, that usually means you're going to conquer it.

(7-72) Purchase Cost Reduction Rework Proposals
NO!!!! Until someone can show me some charts on how much or how little this changes costs compared to what we have today I am not willing to change this. When we did it with BGP we had lots of data to look at. For these we have had none. No way jose!
The original thread's got you covered. Reposting the table here (this is for a 1000 :c5gold: purchase)

Modifierscurrent implementationazum4roll's proposalAnarcomu's proposalaxatin's proposal
Forbidden Palace850830830850
Industry (all policies)700700620700
Stock Exchange800800800800
Rialto (Capital)850800800850
Rialto (other city)900860860850
FP + Industry550610550560
FP + Stock Exchange680680680680
Industry + Stock Exchange560590540560
Rialto (Cap.) + SE670660660680
FB + Ind. + SE440530480470
Rialto (Cap.) + Ind. + SE450520470470
Rialto (Cap.) + FP + Ind. + SE330470430400
Rialto (other) + Ind. + SE480540500470
Rialto (other) + FP + Ind. + SE360490450400

This is also the only discovered instance where local and global modifiers stack multiplicatively. Players wouldn't know this unless they read the code.

That said, the ability to get resource bonuses on city settle might turn out to be quite a big change, moreso than people might think.
You already get all non-food/production yields from them, and also some of the food/production. (e.g. Rice, Bison on grass)

Wrong link for (7-69).
 
Last edited:
if the proposal passes you can get a penalty on food rather than growth from oversupply. food penalties can trigger starvation = city gets unhappy
I don't see the problem. The proposal is to make exceeding supply cap have a penalty. That's exactly what it should do. Calling it a "spiral" makes it sound like there's some kind of feedback loop. Exceed supply cap = unhappy -> lower supply -> more unhappy -> etc. But it's not there. It's just exceeding supply cap has a penalty. That's it. No feedback loop. No spiral.
 
(7-41 & 7-42) Japanese Dojo Buff Proposals
No to all. I think Japan is just fine to me, its a fun war civ. The AI is having problems with warmongers in general right now, which I think we need to fix more holistically, but Japan themself is fine.
I would consider 7-42 more of a quality of life change than a buff.
Even if the unique mechanic basically equates flat yields? Happiness (not unhappiness!) isn't that controllable, and the yield rounds down.

Just thought of something "unique":
If no boredom in the city, gain +4 :c5culture:.

Too late for proposal though.
Not every bonus has to knock my socks off, but anything is better than a flat building yield or city yield. Those are done to death.
 
Not every bonus has to knock my socks off, but anything is better than a flat building yield or city yield. Those are done to death.
It's just like putting a 5% :c5science: to :c5gold: converter on a building. Unique, but not very useful.
I would consider 7-42 more of a quality of life change than a buff.
7-42 is an inconsistency.
 
The original thread's got you covered. Reposting the table here (this is for a 1000 :c5gold: purchase)

Modifierscurrent implementationazum4roll's proposalAnarcomu's proposalaxatin's proposal
Forbidden Palace850830830850
Industry (all policies)700700620700
Stock Exchange800800800800
Rialto (Capital)850800800850
Rialto (other city)900860860850
FP + Industry550610550560
FP + Stock Exchange680680680680
Industry + Stock Exchange560590540560
Rialto (Cap.) + SE670660660680
FB + Ind. + SE440530480470
Rialto (Cap.) + Ind. + SE450520470470
Rialto (Cap.) + FP + Ind. + SE330470430400
Rialto (other) + Ind. + SE480540500470
Rialto (other) + FP + Ind. + SE360490450400
Thank you. I might add some more notes to this table as well, I'll take a look.
 
Top Bottom